Monday, 30 May 1988 The PRESIDENT (Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) took the chair at 2 p.m., and read prayers. The Clerk —Petitions have been lodged for presentation as follows: To the Honourable President and senators in the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petitioners of the undersigned citizens of Australia wish to express their opposition to the privatisation and deregulation of the Australian telecommunications system and to the proposed implementation of timed local calls and directory assistance charging. Your petitioners pray that the Australian Government will take the necessary action to prevent any such privatisation, deregulation, timed local calls and directory assistance charging and we, your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Zakharov (from 72 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia showeth: 1. That the Constitution of the Commonwealth has served Australia well, is not out of date, has proved to be flexible and should not be radically altered. 2. Our deep concern that the recommendations of the Constitutional Commission and its advisory committees which propose radical changes to the Constitution are threatening to reduce our rights as citizens of the Commonwealth. 3. Our strongest opposition to any referendum proposals of the Hawke Government which gives more power to the government and less to the people and which concentrates that power in Canberra at the expense of the States and weakens the role of the Senate. by Senators Durack (from 130 citizens) and Panizza (from seven citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We the undersigned Express concern over the further delay until 28 April 1988 of the Report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material. Call upon the Senate to request the Government as an urgent interim measure to immediately adopt the recommendations and respond positively to the observations of the Senate Select Committee on Video Material by: ensuring that all videos currently on the market which contain a level of violence beyond the current Film Censorship Board guidelines be withdrawn from sale or hire; placing a moratorium on the sale and hire of X-rated videos; promulgating regulations to prevent the transmission by post from Canberra of videos which are banned in the States. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 48 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth that: 1. the right of the people of a country to make law independent of politicians should be a basic and independent right; 2. consequently there is an urgent need for constitutional reforms. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled, should: support the Constitutional Alteration (Electors Initiative) 1987 Bill to alter the constitution so as to vest in the electors power to propose laws and to approve or disapprove such proposed laws. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 15 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. We, the undersigned citizens, respectfully showeth: That we express grave concern about the public release of confidential medical information by the Government, sufficient to enable the public identification of Doctors and their patients and calls upon the Parliament to censure all those involved in this gross abuse of the privacy of all Australians. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Michael Baume (from 32 citizens). To The Honourable The President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth:- But for a High Court decision narrowly favouring the Federal Government, 20 000 years old archaeological cave sites near the Franklin River, Tasmania, would have been destroyed, like a United Kingdom Government unable to stop a Wiltshire authority from clearing Stonehenge for a freeway. Constitutional protection for historical and environmental assets is needed. Your petitioners therefore most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should request the Government to hold a referendum to amend the constitution so that:- The Federal Government has the bounden constitutional duty, which any citizen may legally require it to perform and a right superior to state and local governments, to set above the commercial advantage of one generation, protect and restore all we hold in trust for the future- Including relics, sites, features, areas, wildlife, buildings or things of Aboriginal and other historical, cultural, architectural, scientific, aesthetic, ecological or environmental importance and- To care for the maintenance of the balance of nature, manage land, marine and atmospheric use so as to avoid their degradation and act nationally and internationally in any matter seen as related to these including- To prevent military and commercial use of uranium and derivatives, beach and related mining; to preserve Heritage Areas, the Great Barrier Reef Region at least as originally defined in the 1975 Act and extended into Torres Strait. And your petitioners, as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Jenkins (from 92 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate of the Commonwealth Parliament assembled. The petition of these residents of the Commonwealth of Australia respectfully showeth that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation provides the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia with the only nation-wide, independent radio and television service that the independence of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation must be preserved in the interests of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Australia. that the introduction of commercial sponsorship or any form of advertising material from commercial sources would destroy independence of the Corporation. Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Hon- ourable Senators will oppose the introduction of any form of sponsorship or advertising material from commercial sources into the programmes of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray by Senators Childs (from 32 citizens), Jenkins (from 30 citizens) and Teague (from 32 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: (1) That we are totally opposed to the proposal for the establishment of a gambling casino in Canberra or the Australian Capital Territory. (2) That a casino in Canberra would detract from the unique character and status of our National Capital. Your petitioners therefore most humbly request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to reject any proposal or legislation which would permit the establishment of a casino in the Australian Capital Territory. And your humble petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 56 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: We ask that the Federal Government abandon its proposal to establish a gambling casino in the Australian Capital Territory for the following reasons: 1. It would detract from the unique status of the National Capital-a status recognised and maintained by every preceding Government. 2. All sources of information including Justice Connor's report to the Victorian Government suggest that no method of control can prevent the infiltration of organised crime, and 3. It would be likely to exacerbate existing social problems and create new ones. We urge you to recognise the devastating effects of gambling in the community and the opposition of the majority of voters in the A.C.T. to the establishment of a casino; and your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 85 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That there is widespread concern by farmers and consumers about the proposal to irradiate food in Australia. Your petitioners most humbly pray that the Senate in Parliament assembled should: 1. Block the introduction of food irradiation into Australia. 2. Ban the import of cobalt-60 and caesium-137 and caesium-134 to be used to irradiate food products. 3. Ban the import of all machinery used for food irradiation (electron beam, X-ray etc.) 4. Ban the importation and sale of irradiated food in Australia. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Macklin (from 167 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled: We, the undersigned: (i) are alarmed that many sporting, cultural and community groups have been made to feel that they can attract sponsorship only from promoters of unhealthy products; (ii) call for a National Health Promotion Foundation to be established through an increase in tobacco excise of 10 cents per packet; and (iii) urge that the National Health Promotion Foundation provide national sporting, cultural and community groups with alternative sponsorship funding so that these groups can flourish without the taint of accepting money from tobacco companies and assisting in the promotion of their unhealthy products. And your petitioners, as is duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Peter Baume (from 17 citizens) and Reid (from 200 citizens). To the Honourable the President and Senators assembled in Parliament: The petition of certain citizens of Australia points out that aged and disabled people who require accommodation and support in nursing homes are entitled to the highest possible standard and quality of nursing care. We, the petitioners, request the Government to ensure that provision of funds for nursing homes in Victoria is sustained at least at a level sufficient to maintain the high standard of care now available in nursing homes in this State. by Senator Reid (from 107 citizens). To the Honourable President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: 1. that the public is overwhelmingly opposed to Telecom's plans to introduce time charges for local calls; 2. that while Telecom remains a public enterprise, it must be accountable to the public, its owners; and 3. while Telecom retains a statutory monopoly which shields it from the discipline of competition, it should not be unilaterally allowed to impose extortionate charges upon the public. Your petitioners therefore respectfully call upon all members of the Senate in Parliament assembled to take action to prevent Telecom introducing time charges for local calls. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Crichton-Browne (from 261 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of Australia respectfully showeth: That we are concerned that the Judeo-Christian moral values which have been fundamental in our laws and education systems since the foundation of the country are now being undermined in the current practice of law making, and we are concerned that the values of the secular-humanistic philosophy have taken their place, therefore jeopardizing the moral climate of our society and contributing towards immorality and violence in our society. Your petitioners therefore ask the Senate for the restoration of Judeo-Christian laws and moral values. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Reid (from 56 petitioners). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned expresses concern that some scientists in Australia are intent on undertaking destructive experimentation on human embryos. This subject was examined exhaustively by the 1985-86 Senate Select Committee on Senator Harradine's Human Embryo Experimentation Bill which received 270 submissions and more than 2,000 pages of evidence. The report of the Senate Committee recommended in October 1986 that the Commonwealth Government make unlawful any destructive experiment which frustrated the development of the human embryo. Your petitioners therefore request the Senate and the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia to: Implement without delay the major recommendation of the Senate Select Committee to outlaw destructive experiments on human embryos. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senators Crichton-Browne (from 284 citizens) and Harradine (from 228 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in the House assembled. The petition of the undersigned respectfully showeth: That we most strongly oppose the process of `food irradiation' by Cobalt 60 or any other radioactive substance. That we oppose the introduction of regulations that will facilitate the food irradiation process being permitted by State Governments. That we express our deep concern at this attempt to extend the use of radioactive substances and exposure of workers to radiation. Your petitioners humbly pray that the Senate ban the importation of radioactive Cobalt 60 or other radioactive substances for the purpose of food irradiation and disallow regulations permitting the irradiation of food in Australia. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. by Senator Coates (from 382 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The Petition of the undersigned citizens of Canberra respectfully shows: The ACT Schools Authority has acted in an unfair and improper manner in rejecting, without notice or justification, the Planning Criteria of its Draft Plan ``Community Schools for Canberra 1989-2000'', in which context it had invited communities to respond and in reaching decisions that conflict completely with those criteria. The ACT Schools Authority has acted in this way, has set a precedent for arbitrary school reorganization throughout the whole of Canberra, in which schools can be closed at any time without prior notice or consultation, and without effective justification. The Page Community has been denied natural justice by the decision to close its neighbourhood school, because that decision was made without warning, without consultation, and without right of appeal. The Page Community is the only one in Canberra that has been given no opportunity to respond to a specific draft proposal for closure of its school. Your petitioners therefore pray that: The Senate note our strong and united protest at the ACT Schools Authority's decision to close Page Primary School. Noting that, the ACT Schools Authority identified only two options for school reorganization in the South Belconnen area, and that it has chosen to implement neither, and that the people of the ACT are shortly to be given the possibility of self government; the Senate resolve that no South Belconnen schools be closed until the ACT Schools Authority has: (a) developed a complete and integrated plan for the educational needs of the South Belconnen area; (b) developed and publicized educational and social criteria for maintaining, relocating, reorganizing or closing schools; (c) assessed all schools against these criteria; (d) presented these results for public review, with a full range of options; and (e) allowed reasonable time for community consultation prior to decisions being taken and implemented. And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray. by Senators Jenkins (from 651 citizens) and Reid (from 588 citizens). To the Honourable the President and members of the Senate in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of the undersigned citizens of the Australian Capital Territory respectfully showeth: We ask that the Federal Government take immediate action to arrest the spread of violent and pornographic printed and video material within Australia and to have existing material withdrawn to a point where this country once more achieves acceptable standards of social and moral behaviour. As a first step towards this objective, we ask that the Government immediately: (a) amend the Customs Prohibited Imports Regulations to once more render it illegal for excessively violent and pornographic material to be imported into Australia, and (b) amend the ACT Classification of Publications Ordinance to prohibit the importation into, production within, and distribution from the ACT of R and X-rated video material and pornographic literature. We urge the Government to recognise that it is inappropriate for the National Capital to be the distribution point from which violent and pornographic material can legally be sent by mail order to residents of the various States in which this material has been banned, and to take the steps necessary to redress this situation. by Senator Reid (from 60 citizens). Petitions received. Senator GARETH EVANS(Victoria-Manager of Government Business in the Senate) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Sessional Orders or other Orders of the Senate, the sitting times for Wednesday, 1 June 1988 and Thursday, 2 June 1988 be as follows: Wednesday, 1 June- 10 a.m. to 12.45 p.m. 2 p.m. to 8 p.m. Thursday, 2 June- 10 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. 8 p.m. to 10.30 p.m. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to standing order 109a, I give notice that, at the giving of notices on the next day of sitting, I shall withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2, standing in my name for two sitting days after today, for disallowance of certain Meat Inspection (Victoria) Orders. I seek leave to incorporate in Hansard a short description of the scrutiny of these orders by the Standing Committee on Regulations and Ordinances. Leave granted. The document read as follows- The Minister for Resources, Senator the Hon. Peter Cook, assisted the Committee with its scrutiny of these Orders by explaining the scope of AAT review rights. The Committee appreciates the Minister's assistance. The Committee's correspondence was tabled in the Senate on Thursday, 26 May 1988. Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory) —Pursuant to my notice of intention given on Thursday, 26 May, I now withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 1 standing in my name for this day of sitting for disallowance of export control fees orders, export Control Orders No. 19 of 1987 and Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 2 standing in my name for the next day of sitting for disallowance of Australian Federal Police (Police Liaison Advisory Committee for the Australian Capital Territory) Regulations 1988. I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. Senator COLLINS —Although I gave notice of intention on Thursday, I do not yet propose to withdraw Business of the Senate, Notice of Motion No. 3, standing in my name for the next day for disallowance of certain Australian meat and livestock orders, as the Committee's scrutiny is not yet completed. I therefore withdraw my notice of intention for today. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) recognises that the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) motor registry system imposes on the citizens of the ACT unnecessary, inconvenient and costly delays as a result of the length of time required to put vehicles through the Motor Registry testing station and complete the necessary paperwork (usually a minimum of one hour, and sometimes up to two or more hours); (b) notes that in no other part of Australia, are motor vehicle owners subject to the same inconvenience; and (c) calls upon the Government to, as a matter of priority, consider the introduction of new mechanised facilities, which could be provided and run by private enterprise, to conduct motor vehicle testing and registration more efficiently and with less inconvenience to the Canberra public than is presently the case. Senator TEAGUE(South Australia) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate congratulates Archbishop Edward Clancy, of the Archdiocese of Sydney, on his nomination by Pope John Paul II to be a Cardinal of the Catholic Church and welcomes this recognition of the Archbishop's significant contribution to the Church and to the Australian community. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) expresses concern at reports from the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions that 19 Australian companies are continuing to do business with South Africa, despite the decision of the Federal Government to support international sanctions against South Africa. (b) notes that by their selfish and immoral behaviour such companies are compromising the efforts of countries around the world to apply sufficient economic pressure on the South African Government to force Pretoria to dismantle its abhorrent apartheid system; and (c) notes that the reported decision of the 19 Australian companies is undercutting the efforts of the Australian Government to play a leading role in the resolution of the South African problem. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate, noting- (a) the claim by the Treasurer (Mr Keating) that workers would not lose a cent under his May Economic Statement's new tax system is false; (b) that on the contrary and despite his assurances, changes in the tax system he announced on Wednesday, 25 May 1988, will adversely affect the net superannuation benefit for lower and middle income earners; and (c) that thousands of employees at every level are likely to lose valuable fringe benefits because of the new tax disadvantage to be suffered by companies providing such benefits, calls on the Government to reconsider its hasty and badly thought out May 1988 tax Statement so that the Government either knows what it is doing or can be honest in describing what it is really doing. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania) —I give notice that, on the next day of sitting, I shall move: That the Senate- (a) notes that the Prime Minister's (Mr Hawke) Statement on the May Mini-Budget, that living standards of Australians would rise immediately, is in direct conflict with the Treasurer's (Mr Keating) Statement, which acknowledged that this Budget would lower living standards of the average Australian by increasing home interest rates; and (b) supports this statement by the Treasurer. Senator VANSTONE —My question is directed to the Minister for Justice. I refer the Minister to the article in the Canberra Times today with the heading, `Officers blame AGs for d'Hondt fiasco', which article relates to the proposed system of voting for the Australian Capital Territory in the Government's self-government proposal. The article states: The d'Hondt electoral system is known to have been cleared at least three times by the Attorney-General's Department . . . Was the proposal cleared on three occasions with the Attorney-General's Department? Has it now been ascertained that this advice was in error? Does the Government propose to alter the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill? What guarantee can the Minister give that there is not a similar stuff-up in the other referendum proposals, and were they checked with the same sources in the Attorney-General's Department before being put before the Parliament? Senator TATE —I understand that the Attorney-General's Department did carry out an assessment of the proposal for a voting system in the Australian Capital Territory. Whether it was on two or three occasions, I just do not know; no doubt that can be ascertained if required. Of course it is important that the system of voting in the ACT be a fair one and I know that my colleague Senator Richardson, on behalf of the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, would ensure that that was the case. It is a fact that discussions have been held this morning with members of the Opposition and the Australian Democrats concerning possible alterations to one of the referendum Bills presently before the chamber, and it may be that if it were the desire of the Senate those amendments could be considered during the committee debate and dealt with. Senator VANSTONE —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. The Minister was asked what guarantee he could give that there would not be a similar stuff-up in the other referenda proposals, which question he chose to ignore. I ask him to address that. Senator TATE —It is the wish of the Government, as always, to present to this chamber in relation to ordinary legislation and obviously to the people in relation to referendums the best drafted proposals possible. We will try to ensure that that is in fact the case. Of course, if during the consideration of proposals, whether ordinary Bills or referendum proposals, it becomes apparent that some amendment is required we will not be ashamed to come into this chamber and seek to have that amendment carried. Senator COONEY —Did the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations see the article and photograph on page 10 of today's Age newspaper discussing the imprisonment of clerks at the Seoul branch of the Westpac Bank striking for better wages? Does the Government have any policy, and if so what is that policy, respecting this action by an Australian bank? Does the Government intend to do anything about it, and if so what? Senator BUTTON —The article in question has been drawn to my attention. The Department of Industrial Relations has been in contact with Westpac in an endeavour to obtain details concerning the alleged incident. The Government's position will be examined and any action considered in the light of the factual position. The Government would certainly not condone the alleged action taken by the bank's Seoul officials, if the newspaper report is correct. When the facts become clearer, I will be prepared to advise Senator Cooney and the Senate further. Senator PUPLICK —I address my question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General. I ask: Was advice sought by the Minister responsible for the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill from the Australian Electoral Commission in relation to the compatibility of the Government's proposed electoral system for the Australian Capital Territory with its proposed referendum requirements and the impact which those constitutional changes might have on State voting systems? If no advice was sought from the Australian Electoral Commission, why was the Government's alleged electoral expertise in that Commission ignored? If the Electoral Commission was consulted, what advice did it give the Government? Senator TATE —I am not myself aware of whether the advice of the Australian Electoral Commission was sought in relation to the compatibility of the proposed system of voting in the ACT with the referendum proposal. I do not know whether that was the case as to the proposal as a whole or as to any particular detail. I will seek that advice from the Attorney-General, the Minister responsible. Senator PUPLICK —Mr President, I ask a supplementary question. In the light of Senator Tate's answer can he say whether any advice has been sought from the Australian Electoral Commission now that it has been revealed that the legislation before the Parliament is defective and the Government has taken a decision to proceed with amendment, or has the expertise of the Australian Electoral Commission been ignored again? Senator TATE —I do not know that any further advice has been sought during the morning from the Australian Electoral Commission. I believe that that particular aspect of the answer can also be given as soon as I have consulted the Attorney-General. Senator BLACK —Is the Minister for Industry, Technology and Commerce aware of the recent statistics which indicate a fall in business investment in the March quarter? Is this discouraging to the prospects of restructuring Australian industry? Senator BUTTON —Strangely enough, I am aware of the figures for the March quarter in respect of business investment. While the real total of investment declined in that quarter, it represented an adjustment from the unusually high December quarter rather than an indication of any longer downward trend. However, the preliminary expectations data for 1988-89 indicate an annual increase of 13 per cent over the 1987-88 outcome. The March quarter Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey showed a more positive result for manufacturing investment, however-much more satisfactory than was recorded in December. It appears that as the impact of the October stock market crash recedes manufacturing is taking a more optimistic view of its longer term investment requirements. Manufacturing reversed its investment decline in the December quarter to raise real investment levels by 16 per cent in the March quarter, and a further increase in real manufacturing investment is expected in the June quarter. It can be expected that the changes implemented by the Government in the May economic statement should provide a positive environment for business investment in the next financial year. Following the release of the May statement on Wednesday of last week it was heartening, for example, to see that ICI Australia Ltd announced a very substantial investment in Gladstone in Queensland. The Managing Director, Dr Michael Deerley, in a Press release issued on Thursday, said: the gladstone venture was a unique opportunity for ICI Australia to invest in the rapidly booming gold industry. The Australian economic environment has encouraged ICI Australia to selectively expand capital expenditure and the company's plans for this year total $250m. I mentioned that only as it is supportive of the estimate by the ABS for investment in the June quarter. Senator JENKINS —I draw the attention of the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs to an article on page 25 of the West Australian of 23 May 1988 with the heading `Judge Sets Iranians Free'. Has the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs furnished the information requested by Mr Justice Lee on the fate of an Iranian reportedly sent back to Iran last year? Under what circumstances was this person sent back to Iran, and for what reasons? What treatment did this Iranian receive when he or she was returned to Iran? Was he or she subsequently tortured? Was he or she executed, as reported? How was the reported execution carried out? If the execution was by shooting, was the family of the victim required to pay for the bullets, as is reportedly customary? Does the Department have guidelines for the deportation of foreign citizens whose personal safety is threatened? Senator REYNOLDS —Senator Jenkins gave me notice of this question but, because of the detail, it has not been possible to get all the answers sought by Senator Jenkins. Nevertheless, I have undertaken to get them as speedily as possible, possibly before the end of Question Time and certainly by tomorrow. However, I can answer the last question, about guidelines relating to the deportation of foreign citizens whose personal safety is threatened. In relation to this case, the Department has no knowledge as to what treatment the man received upon or since his return to Iran from India in 1985. The present procedures for the deportation or exclusion of a foreign citizen require the consideration of any claims he or she may make in relation to his or her personal safety. Where an application is made for refugee status and the person has no claim for refuge from another signatory country, that application is decided by the Minister or his delegate in the light of an assessment by the Determination of Refugee Status Committee. That Committee is an interdepartmental body set up to advise the Minister in relation to claims for recognition of refugee status by claimants in Australia. A foreign citizen who claims fear for his or her personal safety in an overseas country is not deported or excluded except as is consistent with Australia's international obligations following consideration of the particular situation. I thank Senator Jenkins for her patience and I anticipate having the remainder of the answer by tomorrow at the latest. Senator DEVLIN —My question is to the Minister representing the Minister for Industrial Relations. Can the Minister confirm a substantial drop in industrial disputation for the five months ended January this year? Can the Minister confirm that second-tier productivity claims have led to greater understanding between management and employees? Senator BUTTON —I can confirm those things. The industrial disputes figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for January 1988 confirm the significant and continuing improvement in industrial relations under this Government. They represent a continuation of the downward trend in disputation levels evident over the last five months. This is in complete rebuttal of Senator Chaney's claims made last March, in a Press release of 23 March 1988, that ABS statistics were confirming a deteriorating trend in industrial disputation. The January figure of 29,200 working days lost is 66 per cent lower than the corresponding figure for December 1987, and 65 per cent lower than the 20-year January average. The dramatic improvement in industrial relations since the election of this Government is shown even more clearly by the monthly average of working days lost, which has dropped by 54 per cent to that experienced under the previous Government. On the second part of the question, the current two-tier system has resulted in many cases in a greater understanding between management and employees. I think this is recognised by both management and employees. It has provided an important impetus for management and trade unions to discuss productivity and efficiency measures and has opened the way for further consultation and cooperative effort. The emphasis on industry and enterprise negotiations could have resulted in a greater degree of disputation at that level during the second-tier negotiations, but, as the figures show, it has not, and indeed the reverse has occurred. Senator CHANEY —My question is addressed to the Minister for Justice, as the Minister in charge of the referenda proposals which are before the Senate. What I ask him follows the question which was addressed to him by Senator Vanstone. Does not the demonstration by Senator Vanstone that there is a defect in the second constitutional proposal-namely, the so-called Fair Elections Bill-demonstrate the value of the Senate, which the Government proposes to weaken by its first referendum proposal? Does the Government intend to introduce amendments to the Fair Elections Bill when the Bill comes on for debate? I ask that because in the Minister's answer he seems to be leaving the matter in the hands of the Senate. I ask whether him the Government is proposing to amend this Bill, which is now before us? Senator TATE —The Government does intend to bring forward amendments during the committee stage of the Senate's debate on the second referendum Bill. Before I sit down, I just want to say that of course I do not accept the assertion in the earlier part of Senator Chaney's question that our first proposal, about parliamentary terms, does indeed weaken the power of the Senate. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.24) —I move: That so much of the Standing Orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition from moving a motion to censure the Government. I will speak to the motion, unless the Government intends to allow the suspension. Perhaps I can ask for some indication. Senator Button —Away you go. Senator CHANEY —Does the Government intend to allow the suspension of Standing Orders? Senator Button —Yes. Question resolved in the affirmative. Motion of Censure Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(2.25) —I move: That the Senate censures the Government for its incompetence in negligently proposing to the people of Australia constitutional referenda the full consequences of which had not been considered and which the Government is now proposing to amend. I have moved the motion because the Minister for Justice (Senator Tate) has just made it clear from his answer that on this the final week of sitting, on a date which is after the time the Government set down for a final vote in the Senate, through the call of the Senate for a vote on certain constitutional amendments, we now find that the second of these proposals is defective. It has been alleged consistently by the Opposition, and I think supported by independent observers who have been quoted in this debate, that the Government has been thoroughly dishonest in its approach to these constitutional amendments. What the Government has done is to put apparently bland questions to the Australian people which do not represent the full import of the constitutional proposals which are being put forward. In particular, the first proposal, which would weaken the role of this Senate, has been put forward as a proposal which on the face of it relates only to the extension of the term of the Parliament when it is in part a proposal for a reduction in the term of this part of the Parliament. In exactly the same way we have condemned the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill as being hypocritical because, quite clearly, the Government proposed to apply a rule to the upper and lower Houses of the State parliaments which it was not seeking and should not have been seeking to apply to this Senate and the House of Representatives. On those grounds we have condemned the Government for its hypocrisy in bringing forward constitutional amendments which we believe are unsupportable and which are certainly being presented in a quite dishonest way to the people of Australia. What has been demonstrated over the last few days-the demonstration commenced with the statements which were put out by Senator Amanda Vanstone last Friday on her return to South Australia-is that these proposals are being brought forward not only in a dishonest way but also in a way which is utterly incompetent because, as the Government has now admitted, the proposals would effectively strike down the Hawke Government's own proposals for self-government in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). In other words, the capacity of this Government to put forward something which supposedly is to relate to one vote one value and fair elections throughout the Commonwealth of Australia is exposed as being defective because not only is it not being applied to this Federal Parliament-and, I repeat, nor should it be applied-but also it is incapable of being applied without destroying the whole process of self-government for the ACT which this Government put forward just a few weeks ago. That matter shows, yet again, that this Government has not adequately prepared either itself or the electorate for the changes which are put forward. Senator Stone —Rushing them through. Senator CHANEY —Senator Stone says that this is a rush to constitutional change. I certainly agree with his interjection. I shall explain why the Government has fallen on its face. What we have in the proposal for fair elections, the so-called fair elections referendum, is that for electoral regions where there is only one electorate the method of choosing members shall be, as nearly as practicable, the same as the method of choosing senators. I think that everybody in this place is familiar with the method that is used to choose senators. There is a single electorate for the whole State, compulsory voting, preferential voting, a provision for list voting and an exhaustive use of all the ballots which are cast. They are the methods which have been laid down by this Parliament and, I might say, the methods which have been laid down by this Government. It introduced amendments to the method of elections of senators in the previous Parliament. It introduced the list system of voting. Quite clearly, this Government is saying that for a single electoral region, be it a State or a Territory, in which there is to be a vote for a legislative chamber, the method of election shall be as nearly as practicable the same as the method of choosing senators. The Government is proposing a quite different method of electing people to the proposed House of Assembly or the legislative body which is proposed for the Australian Capital Territory. What is proposed for the Australian Capital Territory is essentially a single vote. A single electorate will cast its vote. This provision in the Constitution, if passed, would apply. All that is proposed is that each voter should have the capacity to cast a single vote. It will be quite different from the method of election which is used for the Senate. As the Government conceded at the eleventh hour-indeed, at 12.30 today-to the Opposition, the Bill is defective and it is necessary to introduce amendments to it to make this change. It is not only the proposals for the Australian Capital Territory which are put at risk by this proposed constitutional amendment. The reality is that in at least two of the States there are upper Houses which are elected by methods which would not comply with the Bill which has been introduced into this Parliament. It is interesting that in each case the method of election which was struck down by the proposed constitutional amendment is a method of election that was put in place by Labor governments. In other words, these electoral proposals do not offend against the so-called sacred principle of one vote one value but nonetheless will be struck down by the Bill which is in the form which is at present before the Senate. What is the situation in South Australia and in New South Wales? In New South Wales there is an optional preference system. The Wran Government introduced that system. It reconstituted the Legislative Council of New South Wales, presumably to make it more democratic, more in accord with the principles which are espoused by the Labor Party. That would, no doubt, be its claim. Yet the optional preferential system which is part of the law of New South Wales would be incompatible with the changes being put forward by this Government and the New South Wales Legislative Council elections would, therefore, be struck down. In South Australia there is no list system. In South Australia, as in New South Wales, the method of choosing members of the upper House is not nearly as practicable the same as the method of choosing senators. This Government is rushing through this Parliament proposals for constitutional amendment which would strike down two of the upper Houses in Australia and destroy the proposals for self-government in the Australian Capital Territory. The Opposition says quite simply that this is adding the charge of incompetence to the charge of dishonesty, which we have formally laid. This view of Senator Vanstone, which was put forward last week and on the basis on which the Government has indicated that it now believes it has to amend its proposals, is supported by a memorandum of advice which was obtained from independent counsel. Mr C. K. Comans, QC, consultant draftsman to the Senate, has provided an opinion which makes it clear that the proposals for the Australia Capital Territory would be destroyed by the present Bill. In these circumstances we believe that the Government deserves severe censure. The point has already been made in this debate that the differentials in the electoral systems which are being struck down by this one vote one value proposal, whether one looks at the Western Australian Upper House, which has been the subject of adverse comment or at the upper House of Tasmania which has also been subject to adverse comment, are less than the differentials which apply to the Federal Parliament which is unaffected by the constitutional change. In other words, the weighting of votes which will continue to apply in the Senate is greater than the weighting of votes which is being struck down in the State legislatures, to which this constitutional amendment would quite differentially apply. It applies only to the States; it does not apply to this, the Commonwealth Parliament. We are being treated to a most shabby exercise by this Government. The people of Australia will be left in the most obvious confusion because the Government is unable even to bring forward these proposals without amendment. We understand that other amendments will be brought forward to this Bill by the Australian Democrats with respect to the permitting of proportional representation. I do not know whether the Government will accept those amendments. We have amendments, which I trust the Government will, in some attempt to show its honesty of purpose, accept, to the long title of the Bills. Clearly, the position is one of confusion. Clearly, the position is one of incompetence. We believe that it calls for the censure of this Government. We ask the Australian Democrats to support this motion. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(2.36) —Senator Chaney set a record today-one for which I am grateful-for the shortest speech on a censure motion in the history of Federal Parliament. He took 10 minutes. One of the first points he made was that we are rushing these constitutional Bills through the Senate. We debated these Bills all of last Monday, all of last Tuesday, half of last Wednesday, most of Thursday, and we desired to debate them last Friday and were denied that opportunity by the Opposition. We are only up to clause 1 in the committee stage. We have witnessed in this chamber a disgraceful filibuster on these constitutional Bills. We spent two hours the other night debating clause 1 of the Bill. We are accused of trying to rush the Bills through Parliament and through this chamber. This chamber is becoming the most anarchistic institution since the Haitian Parliament last met. It is almost impossible to meet any legislative timetable in this place, because we spend 90 per cent of our time on trivia. Senator Chaney —Debating Government statements. Senator ROBERT RAY —Not on Government business; we spend our time debating whether we should do away with regulations and considering urgency motions and committee reports. We waste our time. We should go to the central question of the complexity of the referendum Bills, especially with regard to fair elections. Honourable senators wonder why the legislation is so complex. Let us go to the heart of that question, to begin with. This legislation is so complex because of the deviousness of the conservatives in this country, who have tried to manipulate and rort the electoral laws, historically, over the last century. Those opposite talk a good fight-- Senator Chaney —Mr President, I raise a point of order. The Government has just admitted that it has to amend this legislation to cover its own proposals for the Australian Capital Territory. The Minister accuses us of attacking this on the basis of deviousness. That is ridiculous and he should be forced to withdraw. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator Ray is using an argument in debate. Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr President, there is no point of order. The crooked electoral laws, the malapportionment in this country, have nearly always been as a result of conservative action. Senator Chaney should look at the rorted boundaries in his own State of Western Australia. He and the rest of the Liberals did absolutely nothing about that. Five electoral reform Bills have gone to the Legislative Council in the last six years, and the Liberals have jibbed it; they have done absolutely nothing about that malapportionment in Western Australia. Senator Chaney had the numbers to do something about it. One can only draw two conclusions: he uses one set of words here and goes home and uses another set, or he is a totally ineffectual wimp in Western Australia who cannot influence the Liberal Party in Western Australia or the National Party in Queensland to amend its electoral laws. This set of constitutional provisions is complex. One of the complexities is this: it would be very simple to introduce laws against malapportionment and single member electorates, but unless one blocks, somewhere in the legislation, a movement to a rorted proportional representation system, any such laws are useless. I do not want to go into too much detail. I can see Senator Boswell thinking, `How can we rort the new scheme if this referendum gets in?'. I can hear Senator Boswell thinking that from here. The reality is: proportional representation is not necessarily a fair system. There can be malapportionment under proportional representation. I cite two overseas systems. The Japanese system does not have proportional representation but has multi-member electorates. There are not the same number of members in each electorate. So there can be not only malapportionment but also a restricted number of members in some electorates, say five in one and eight in another, even though they are the same size. The Irish system is one of the most malapportioned systems in the world and has proportional representation. We, as a government, would be justified in putting in the Bill those provisions that relate to the referendum to outlaw a particular malapportionment proportional representation system. If the technical drafting of that legislation knocked out genuine systems, I do not think it would be desirable for this Government or this Parliament for that position to be sustained. If that is the position, if by trying to outlaw malapportionment through a potential proportional representation system as a device to be adopted by State governments, we rule out legitimate existing systems, of course we have to amend the legislation before it is put to the people of Australia. When we look at the history of electoral reform in Australia we find that the last recorded instance of the Labor Party badly interfering with electoral boundaries, to its own shame, was in 1949. That was 38 years ago. When we look to the last time the conservatives, the Liberal and National parties, sought to sustain unfair boundaries, we only have to look to last year in Western Australia. When we look to the situation in Queensland we find that at long last, and I never hear a comment from those opposite, the Queensland Liberal Party has come out and opposed the unfair electoral boundaries in Queensland-unfair to the extent that it will campaign against the national Liberal Party. I do not have much sympathy, though, for the Queensland Liberal Party. On many occasions in the 1970s and early 1980s it was offered an opportunity to do away with those boundaries. It was more interested in staying in office, more interested in providing Ministers in the Queensland coalition Government, and more interested in the trappings of power than it was in its own long term self-interest. Since 1983 it has had to pay a mighty price. It was decimated back to six seats at one particular election. It has had to put up with two of its key members, Mr Lane and Mr Austin, being endorsed by the Liberal Party, being elected by the Liberal Party, and then ratting on the Liberal Party in Queensland, all because those two members wanted to become Ministers. We have also heard, once again, the ludicrous charge from Senator Chaney, admittedly only as a throwaway line, that this set of referendum proposals, especially the first one, will weaken the Senate, will destroy Senate power. I had to point out in my speech at the second reading stage that Senator Chaney sits there now as someone who sat on this side of the chamber in 1977 and vigorously supported simultaneous elections. It is the simultaneous election provision that he objects to. Senator Chaney —It is a totally different proposition. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Chaney objects. Let me go back to the record. Senator Walters —I raise a point of order, Mr President. Senator Ray is talking about simultaneous elections. Question No. 1 has nothing to do with simultaneous elections. It is a four-year term for both Houses. It is a totally different situation. The PRESIDENT —There is no point of order. Senator ROBERT RAY —Let me educate Senator Walters, the hardest task I have had since I qualified as a teacher 11 years ago. Time and again Opposition members, in speeches at the second reading stage, said that one of the worst things about the first proposal was that it was a proposal for simultaneous elections because it would take both Houses out at the same time. Senator Walters, and others, said that this would be terrible, because the Prime Minister of Australia could take the Senate out to an election whenever he liked. Senator Walters —I take a point of order, Mr President. I will not be misquoted by the Minister. I have never said, `half the Senate at the same time'. I have said that it would give the Government the option of taking the whole of the Senate each time. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator Walters knows that is no point of order. She can make a personal explanation under Standing Orders. Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr President, before I was diverted by Senator Walters I was going to go back to the record in 1977. I had to do it last time; let me do it again with respect to Senator Chaney. His first comments, as I said then, were very prophetic. He said: If we are all to be men of absolute consistency it seems to me that we will never make progress with constitutional change and reform. Never before has such a prophetic thing been said, because one could never accuse Senator Chaney of consistency. But in terms of supporting the 1977 referendum, sponsored by his hero Mr Malcolm Fraser, what did Senator Chaney have to say about that referendum weakening the powers of the Senate? He said: There is no real dispute in this chamber about the fact that we should have fewer elections in Australia. It is common knowledge that Senate elections such as have been held since the early 1960s in Australia are held in a by-election atmosphere, and in that situation they do not genuinely reflect the wish of the people as to who should govern. Then we come to the clinching paragraph: Why is it that suddenly the concept of bringing the elections together will destroy this chamber? I do not believe that it will. `I do not believe that it will', said Senator Chaney in 1977. Now that he is in opposition, for the most opportunistic reasons the Opposition opposes the referendum proposals. In 1974 the Liberal-National Opposition was opposed to simultaneous elections. But in 1977, when the Liberal and National parties were in power with a record majority, they suddenly found, for their own convenience, that simultaneous elections were a very good thing. Now that they are in opposition again, simultaneous elections are no longer acceptable. These are the typical flip-flop policies of the Liberal-National Party coalition. But, Mr President, there is a very simple reason. Opposition senators interjecting- The PRESIDENT —Order! There are too many interjections. Senator Chaney was heard in relative quiet. Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr President, the sound coming from those opposite reminds me of galahs in the bush sunset. I will ignore them and proceed. Senator Chaney made an accusation and used the word `dishonesty'. In seeking the reason the Opposition has taken the position it has we need to evaluate why it has adopted its attitudes to the referendum. We need to analyse why the shadow Cabinet was rolled on at least two of the referendum questions. The political reality is that those opposite are dominated by one thought: they do not want a repeat of 1987. The coalition parties have learned one big lesson from 2 February 1987 when they started their gigantic split-that is, from now on they have to support the lowest common denominator. It would not surprise anyone to know that that is the National Party of Australia. Therefore, the attitude adopted by those opposite on these referendums is very simple-- Senator Boswell —Mr President, I take a point of order. The Minister in his address has described the National Party as the lowest common denominator. I reject that. I ask you to direct him to withdraw that from his speech. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator ROBERT RAY —Mr President, I withdraw and substitute `lowest uncommon denominator'. The whole debate has been poisoned by that sort of rattling that the Liberal Party had in 1987. The Liberal Party made a very clear decision in a compact with the National Party-namely, that there will be no further public splits. Therefore, all policy has to be sanitised; all policy has to be reduced to the most simplistic elements possible. Therefore, what emerges from those opposite is never courage- Senator Teague —Mr President, I take a point of order. I draw your attention to standing order 421, which states: The President or the Chairman of Committees may call the attention of the Senate or the Committee, as the case may be, to continued irrelevance or tedious repetition, and may direct a Senator to discontinue his speech: The point of order that I put to you, Mr President, is that Senator Ray has tediously been irrelevant from the beginning of his speech and has not addressed himself to the censure motion at all. He has not addressed himself to the contention of the Government being in disorder and chaos over this matter. I ask you to direct him to discontinue his speech. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. There is a censure motion against the Government, dealing with referendum proposals. I am going to allow a wide-ranging debate. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am glad that sanctimoniousness is not an offence in this place or we would have to dispense with several of those opposite. Now that I have been interrupted I will have to return to my train of thought; that is, that the referendum proposals are being opposed by those opposite essentially because of the need for internal unity. That leads us-and this is why I may have been circumnavigating the globe-to the point of the motion before us and to the main points in the Opposition's debate this week. Because those opposite have not addressed this matter as a question of principle, because they have not addressed the central issues, the very early tactic adopted was, `We have to go to the fringe issues. We cannot take them head on. Let us look at all the fringe issues, all the red herrings, all the irrelevancies that can be introduced to distract debate on this issue'. We knew that was coming before last Monday. We have had a whole series of speeches. It is very edifying to go back and read the speeches made in the second reading debate because they have more in common for what is disparate in them than for what is common to them. All these red herrings were raised. When the question was raised this morning as to whether the legislation should be amended, I thought: Here is another big red herring that the Liberal Party and the National Party will run on. Here is manna from heaven to fill their empty views on the proposals for the referendum. As for the guts of the motion-whether the Government should be censured because it is seeking to amend its legislation-time and time again the Government comes into this chamber or the other place and amends legislation. We would have been open to censure if we had taken the easy path and just ignored the problem. We have had to show the courage, knowing what the reaction would be today, to say that we believe that the second referendum Bill should be amended to make it better. I will conclude on the following note, provided I am not provoked. Senator Walters —Oh, dear, dear! Senator Richardson —You have been provoked. Senator ROBERT RAY —I have been provoked. In typical conservative style, I will do up the button on my coat and go for another 10 minutes. These technical details we are dealing with, for the edification of anyone who is listening, are that when the Government sought to outlaw malapportionment in the States, it was necessary not just to outlaw the 10 per cent deviation over average enrolment in single member constituencies. It would have been quite open to a devious, cunning government somewhere up north to divide its State into several zones and then to apply a rorted form of proportional representation. Therefore, in the original legislation there was a general catch-all clause dealing with proportional representation. It may appear, on legal interpretation, that that would interfere with existing valid proportional representation systems. Therefore, provisions were put in the initial referendum Bills to cover those contingencies. They have been found to be less than perfect. The Attorney-General (Mr Lionel Bowen) is seeking to amend them. I do not believe that that is a matter for censure. It is another excuse for the Opposition not to confront the basic issues but to run with the red herrings. We are accused, in extravagant language, of being dishonest. The reality is that the Opposition has never been honest on these referendum proposals. It has never addressed them on their merits but on the basis of political expediency and a desire to present a united front. Once again the conservatives of this country are endorsing and underwriting rorted electoral laws right around the country. Senator Bishop —Rubbish. Senator ROBERT RAY —Those opposite shout `Rubbish'. In Queensland, Western Australia and Tasmania they have had their opportunity to amend these laws. How much longer do we have to wait? We have even had Senator Chaney interjecting, virtually saying that if he was born in Queensland he would have supported the referendum. That is what he said- Senator Chaney —That is untrue. Senator ROBERT RAY —What other interpretation would I put on that? Senator Chaney's words were that if he had been born in Queensland he would be doing everything possible to overturn the electoral laws. He may not go as far as supporting the referendum, but it is interesting to note that Senator Chaney, born in, I assume, Western Australia, or at least he is a Western Australian, per se, would be willing in Queensland to urge changes to its rorted electoral laws. I am waiting for the big speech in Western Australia where there are electorates in which the number of voters varies from about 3,000 up to 28,000. Did Senator Chaney have laryngitis? Why did he not once speak out? He is a man of principle and a man of courage. Why did he not once speak out against these things? When he does, maybe I, on this side, will then start to accept some of his sanctimonious charges about dishonesty. But when it comes to inconsistency and lack of courage for speaking out, Senator Chaney must take the cake. Being the most prominent Liberal in Western Australia he let that crooked system go by year by year and said nothing. He let his crooked colleagues in Western Australia run loose with the electoral boundaries. Where there are up to 8:1 differences in the ratios between electorates, Senator Chaney, the man of principle, is absolutely silent. I am really tempted to move an amendment to this censure motion to censure Senator Chaney for his absolute gutlessness in dealing with malapportionment in Western Australia. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(2.57) —Senator Robert Ray has said that he has come into this chamber to give us a circumnavigation of the issue. He certainly has, because, like Christopher Columbus, he started off not knowing where the hell he was going and when he got there he did not have the faintest idea where the hell he was; and he has been doing it all on money bludged off rich mates of the Australian Labor Party around Australia. This whole debate turns on the question of what the Australian Labor Party's attitude is to the Australian Constitution-not a document which should be sought to be amended carefully after proper debate and proper scrutiny, but simply a tool for the Australian Labor Party to put into effect those sorts of things which it has been unable to achieve in terms of the States of Australia or, indeed, to persuade the electors in other circumstances to put into the Constitution either at the State or at the Commonwealth level. This motion of censure arises because the Government, after all its posturing and all its noise about the importance of constitutional reform, has sought to bring forward a piece of legislation found on its own tests to be defective. What does it propose to do? It proposes to introduce further amendments to its own amendment essentially to preserve the rorts and gerrymanders in the electoral law which State Labor administrations have put into effect or are intending to put into effect. It is amending this piece of legislation in order to preserve a system of election in the upper House in New South Wales introduced by Mr Wran-whose conviction about the one vote one value arrangement was such as to draw electoral boundaries to ensure that the Opposition parties needed more than 52 per cent of the vote in order to win government-in order to advantage the Labor Party in the State upper House. The legislation seeks to bring into the Australian Capital Territory a method of election devised by some boy wonder down the other end of this chamber in order to preserve the position of the Labor Party as far as the Australian Capital Territory was concerned. And it is to make sure that when Mr Hand introduces his proposals for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and has an electoral system which has 52 regional electorates, none of which has one vote one value, or acceptable electoral systems, according to this piece of legislation, those proposals shall be preserved. So we have an amendment to the Government's own attempt to amend the Constitution based upon the necessity to preserve an existing Labor Party rort in New South Wales, to create a Labor Party rort in the Australian Capital Territory and to develop a Labor Party rort as far as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission is concerned. This matter is now being pushed through with maximum speed not because there is any necessity to do so but in order to get these honourable senators opposite down to their watering hole in Tasmania where they can take clubs to each other in the course of their National Conference, hosted by a Party branch whose investments have got them into financial strife in Tasmania. They cannot even invest their own money wisely, let alone be trusted with the government of the country. They are going down to their conference in Tasmania so that Senator Button can decide whether or not their uranium policy is in fact a silly policy. Senator Evans can formally apologise to the Australian Council of Trade Unions for having flirted with privatisation. Senator Tate can make all sorts of explanations about why he, as the Minister representing the Attorney-General, cannot run a pie shop let alone demonstrate any capacity here. He is a person who cannot answer questions about Federal Hotels Ltd or about the National Crime Authority, and who does not even understand his own War Crimes Amendment Bill. He does not know what sort of advice he has been getting from the Attorney-General's Department or from the Australian Electoral Commission about a piece of legislation for which he is now responsible. The National Conference will enable Senator Richardson to confront his Tasmanian friends about whether he proposes to dishonour the clear promise given by Mr Cohen to adopt the findings of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. It will allow him to explain that. It will allow Senator Bolkus to explain all of this nonsense about cheaper clothing, textile and footwear imports when they are not actually affected by the proposed tariff reductions. It will allow Senator Button and Senator Cook to sort out who it is that will have the last say on uranium policy. That is the imperative that we have been faced with in terms of the time which has been made available for this debate. Senator Ray talks about this being some sort of anarchistic approach. I have no doubt that, given the Labor Party's approach to the Senate, and given its attitude to the Parliament, what it would really like to do is go out and find some van der Lubbe in the community to set fire to the Reichstag, to burn the whole place down so it can govern without it. One only wonders what Tommy Domican is doing next weekend. There will undoubtedly be plenty of opportunity for the Labor Party to adopt that tactic. What we have seen here is quite clearly an attempt by the Government to bring forward amendments to the Australian Constitution which on the face of them appear to be absolutely shoddy amendments which need to be changed. It was to the great credit of Senator Vanstone that, in discharging her responsibility concerning the electoral system in the Australian Capital Territory, she perceived the difficulty involved in the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill and discovered that there was a legal opinion provided by an eminent Queen's Counsel who has served in many advisory capacities for both the Senate and the Government which made it quite clear that the Government did not have the faintest understanding of the import of its own piece of legislation-a piece of legislation that had presumably been through the Cabinet, through Cabinet committees; through the Attorney-General's Department three times and has now been found to be incompetent; through the Caucus and its committees; and steamrolled through the House of Representatives and found to be shoddy. Had it not been for the ability of the Senate to deal with this matter in good order we would have had an attempt to put into the Australian Constitution a flawed piece of legislation, a whole new chapter in the Constitution which was suddenly found not to have suited the political desires of the Australian Labor Party. Its whole attitude to this matter is like its attitude to the Australia Card. We can have lots of legislation but every now and again the really important, significant parts of the legislation simply do not work. They will not work in this case because the ministry involved is not competent enough to draw up legislation to have the required effects. The Attorney-General's Department above all, for which Senator Tate is responsible in this place, has created a running saga of pieces of legislation fundamentally defective which the Government has had to withdraw from the Parliament or try to make explanations for. Senator Tate still cannot explain the import of the war crimes legislation he is bringing forward. I have no doubt that he will be totally incompetent in terms of being able to explain all of the national companies and securities legislation which is coming forward. The debate on the first clause of the referendum Bill, which we debated the other day and about which Senator Robert Ray has made so much, went for so long because Senator Tate was unable to give any satisfactory answers in that debate. This is typical of the way in which the Government approaches its legislative responsibilities in this place and, indeed, the way in which it approaches the whole question of constitutional reform. If it had not been for the ability of the Senate to deal with this piece of legislation, legislation would have been enacted, on the basis of the numbers which the Government together with the Australian Democrats has in this place, which would have been flawed. If it had not been for this chamber, with the Democrats supporting the Opposition parties on this question, we would have had the Australia Card rammed through, with all its unintended consequences. If it had not been for this chamber we would have had the Bill of Rights rammed down the neck of the people of Australia. We are now seeing an attempt, in the fourth referendum question, to introduce that by back door methods anyway. Therefore, it is no wonder that the Minister for Transport and Communications (Senator Gareth Evans) is pursuing the policy so clearly enunciated in his maiden speech in this place about white-anting the Senate, about making sure that every conceivable opportunity is taken to weaken the power of the Senate, to change its terms, to change its rotation and to change its constitutional powers. The one thing that one can say about Senator Gareth Evans is that he has been absolutely consistent in his belief-undoubtedly being reinforced at this very moment-that the Senate should be closed down as quickly as possible and all power transferred in the first instance to the Caucus and in the second instance, through the Caucus, to the Executive of the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) so that it can run the country in the way that it ran and ruined Bourke's department store in Melbourne. Senator Robert Ray made all sorts of comments about the situation in terms of Western Australia. What he is not prepared to do is address the question of the resignation of Mr Tonkin, the Minister responsible for electoral affairs in Western Australia, who quit his position because he knew that the Labor Party in Western Australia was not playing honest with the people of that State on electoral reform. As I have said, the reason that this legislation was pressurised through the House of Representatives has a great deal to do with the Labor Party's political agenda; it has nothing to do with the good government of Australia and it has nothing to do with proper constitutional practice in Australia. How Senator Tate, trading as he does-I do not blame him for this-upon the personal goodwill that exists towards him across the chamber, can continue to come in here and display the level of ministerial incompetence that he displays is almost beyond belief. We have once again gone through this most exhaustive process to produce a constitutional amendment found to be absolutely flawed. The reason that it has been demonstrated to be flawed and the reason that it is to be changed is that the Labor Party's political agenda, in terms of the upper House of New South Wales and the proposed electoral system in the Australian Capital Territory and all the other electoral thimble and pea tricks that it is going on with, would potentially have been caught. It is not that the Labor Party wants fair and democratic elections; it wants constitutional arrangements to guarantee maximum political benefit for the Australian Labor Party. The moment it finds that the effect of its constitutional amendment is to weaken the political position of the Australian Labor Party we are confronted, all of a sudden, at the eleventh hour, with amendments to constitutional legislation. Goodness knows what would have happened if the House of Representatives had adjourned the other day until August and had not been scheduled to be returning on Friday in order to look at the Government's amendments. Presumably, there would have been telegrams dispatched all around the place dragging Labor Party members back from their conference or from their free trips to all sorts of corners of the world to bring back the House of Representatives in order to meet this Government's September deadline-or whatever it is-for this constitutional referendum. That deadline is there only in order to divert public attention from the enormous economic problems created by the policies of this Government, underpinned by the political problems that it has over uranium and other issues which are to come up at its conference. That $35m set aside in the appropriation legislation for the conduct of this unnecessary referendum could properly have been spent on all the other high priority matters in this country at the moment, or indeed should not have been spent in the way in which this profligate approach to public expenditure is being undertaken by the Government. The motion which has been moved by Senator Chaney is a simple one. It condemns and censures the Government for the incompetence which it has displayed in negligently proposing to the people of Australia referendum, proposals the full consequences of which have not yet been considered. It is quite clear that neither Senator Tate nor anybody else on the Labor Party front bench actually understood in detail the referendum proposal on which the Government was proposing to spend $35m to entrench in the Australian Constitution, and they have been caught out once again, as they were on the Australia Card and as they were with the Bill of Rights. The Senate should properly condemn the Government for that incompetence. We now wait for the incompetent Minister in charge of the Bill actually to get into the debate instead of leaving it to Senator Ray to try to cover for him in this matter. This motion of censure ought to be passed because the Government stands condemned for the manifest incompetence which will be demonstrated when it seeks to amend its own amendments to the Constitution, which ought to be regarded as the fundamental organic law of this country and held in proper respect, not as the mere plaything for the Australian Labor Party and its various tawdry factions. Senator MACKLIN(Queensland)(3.12) —The Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney) has proposed-I believe this is the actual wording although I have not got a copy of the motion from Senator Chaney: That the Senate censures the Government for its incompetence in negligently proposing to the people of Australia referendum proposals the full consequences of which have not been considered. The difficulty with that proposition is that we have no amendments before us at the moment because no such amendments have been circulated in the chamber. On top of that, we are asked to make a pre-statement before the committee stage of the Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) Bill that we support or do not support these amendment proposals. Senator Vanstone —They are not. Senator Alston —It is the principle of the amendment. The PRESIDENT —Order! Senator MACKLIN —If other honourable senators wish to make a speech, they can do so at a later stage. The context of the matter is clearly that the Government intends to propose amendments at the committee stage of this Bill; we are in the committee stage of the first Bill. When we get to the committee stage of the second Bill it is then within the competence of the Senate to decide whether or not what the Government has done, in terms of its original legislation, is correct. I have not heard from either Senator Chaney or Senator Puplick as to whether the Opposition parties intend to oppose or support the amendments, but if the Opposition was of a mind, as I gained from Senator Puplick's comments-although I may have been wrong-to oppose the amendments, and if we did likewise, those amendments would be lost. What would happen then, of course, is that we would not have a proposal that is flawed, because the Opposition would have decided it was not flawed when it opposed the amendments. I believe that the propositions are relatively simple. If one follows the procedures of this place, it is quite clear that one brings in an amendment at the relevant time, argues that amendment and the chamber accepts it or otherwise. Senator Walters —You don't gag a Bill through like the House of Representatives does. Senator MACKLIN —Under those circumstances, it seems excessively odd for the Senate, of all places, to be seeking to say to the Government that it is negligently putting forward some proposals to the people of Australia. The Opposition parties and the Government parties have often accused the Australian Democrats of having no responsibility for what happens. My retort to that has always been that legislation-this is why we have a parliamentary democracy-will be passed by both Houses of this Parliament. Senator Walters —The Senate is being downgraded. Senator MACKLIN —While that remains the case, the body which has the responsibility for legislation in this country is not the Government; it is the Parliament, and part of the Parliament is the Senate. Quite clearly, the Senate is the body which, more than the House of Representatives, certainly in the last eight years, has been responsible for looking at legislation in detail. I believe that the Senate's role in future will be more and more to scrutinise legislation. If that argument is accepted-I have heard it expressed on behalf of the Opposition parties and indeed by some members of the Government-this Senate should not go around censuring anybody for doing the type of thing Senator Vanstone did, that is, raise, quite properly, an objection to legislation that she believed had a fault, and then argue-- Senator Vanstone —I did not raise an objection. I pointed out an inconsistency. Senator MACKLIN —She pointed out an inconsistency. She argued that there was an inconsistency between the Government's proposals in one area-that is, in terms of attempting to propose the d'Hondt system for the Australian Capital Territory as a means of proportional representation-and the Bill. That seems to me to be quite proper. Is Senator Chaney arguing and putting us on notice that the next Liberal government, when it finds that it has made a mistake in any of its legislation, will not seek to amend it in this chamber? I find that proposition too much to swallow. I remind honourable senators of the famous story of Maynard Keynes when a woman in the audience said to him, `What you are saying now is inconsistent with what you said when you lectured us last year', to which he replied, `Madam, when I find I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?'. The Senate has yet to determine whether it thinks the Government is wrong. We will have to wait until the committee stage to see whether it does. Senator Walters, who has been interjecting volubly on my right, would have noticed that last week I foreshadowed an amendment to the Bill. I hope that when we reach the appropriate stage we will debate it. I was not about to move a censure motion on the Government because I wanted to move an amendment to a Bill. If I was going to do that, I would be launching a censure every day of the week. If honourable senators read the Hansards they will find that the Democrats produce amendment after amendment. We believe that this chamber has the right and the duty to consider legislation in detail and to amend it where necessary. I see no reason to censure the Government because the Senate wants to do its job-a perfectly reasonable job. Senator Tambling —But don't rush constitutional amendments. Senator MACKLIN —I remind Senator Tambling that my Bill with regard to this matter was discussed and debated at the Constitutional Convention in Brisbane three years ago. It was the subject of a joint committee inquiry for 2 1/2 years. The Bill was probably considered in more detail than any other Bill. I certainly have not rushed any amendments. As I said in my speech to the second reading motion of this Bill, I would have preferred the Government to have taken up my private member's Bill, which was exhaustively inquired into. The Government may now wish that it had taken it up, because this section did not appear in it. I imagine that it arose, if one considered the possible origin of its drafting, from the last section in my Bill, which dealt with penalties for a State that did not abide by the requirement to have fair elections and, having come up against that constitutional barrier, where the High Court had declared that an election could be held under the existing boundaries. In my Bill the penalty under those circumstances was that the election would have to be held at large, the method being as near as practicable to the same as the method for electing the senators. In what might be an attempt at elegance of drafting, it is proposed that that section be incorporated into the body of the Constitution to deal with both the territories and States. Unfortunately, it is said at that point to run foul of two considerations. In the upper House in New South Wales, presumably, the method used is not the same as the method of choosing senators. The method used is the optional preferential system, the d'Hondt system. In its use of a mathematical calculation it differs quite significantly from the modified Hare-Clark system used in the Senate. I will be asking a number of questions in the committee stage to try to elicit from the Government whether that is true before we commit ourselves to supporting the amendments which have been circulated by the Government. We have had one legal opinion. I have had an opposing legal proposition. I suppose that we should be able to get at least 30 or 40 different opinions before the day is finished. I am still not sure-and there are a number of detailed questions which, on behalf of my party, that I wish-- Senator Hill —Is the Government sure? Senator MACKLIN —I am not sure whether the Government is sure, either. I have had a number of discussions with officers from the Attorney-General's Department this morning. I am not satisfied with regard to the second amendment the Government is moving. The first amendment has nothing to do with any of the things that have gone on in this debate. I presume that Senator Chaney realises that. If Senator Tambling had bothered to listen before, he would have realised that the second amendment, which the Government showed me this morning and which it proposes to move in the committee stage, has a lot to do with what we have been discussing. The third one does not, except tangentially. We believe that proposed new section 124d (2) (b) may inhibit, for example, New South Wales, which has a constitutional entrenchment of the provision whereby it would not be able to pass laws as provided for under this section-- Senator Tambling —You said at the start that you had not seen the amendments. Senator MACKLIN —I did not say that I had not seen the amendments. I said that the amendments had not been moved, and they have not been moved. Senator Tambling —What are you talking about now? Senator MACKLIN —I referred to the proposed amendments that the Government showed me this morning. I am quite happy to talk about the ones that is proposes to move. Those amendments are not secret. I went on to say that whether the Senate accepts those amendments is a matter upon which this censure motion hangs, because if the Senate does not accept them, we are accepting that the Bill is not flawed. So the Opposition is in difficulty if it proposes to vote against the amendments simply on those grounds. I am spelling out whether we support what we were shown this morning by the Government. I am not sure whether the section runs foul of that consideration. There might be an interesting debate about whether it does. Senator Walters —Vote against it. Senator MACKLIN —It is an interesting matter. If Senator Walters bothered to read the Bill instead of yapping all the time she might even learn something. That is something that we would probably like, but cannot realistically expect. I believe that the proposal in the original Bill, which deals with the Territories and States, is probably sound. My Party has already expressed the view that we would not support the d'Hondt system in the Australian Capital Territory. We have always opposed an optional preferential system in the upper House in New South Wales. In fact, our sole representative in the upper House at the time it was debated voted against it. I believe that Mr Greiner proposes to change that proposition. For those who have not caught up with it, I flag that our current two representatives in the upper House in New South Wales, who hold the balance of power, have determined that they would get rid of the optional preferential method. On both of those grounds, I am not sure why it would be expected that we would want to support the proposition being advanced here. At this stage I signal that we would argue that the Bill is not flawed as it stands, that section 124b (2) (b) is not flawed, because at the moment we do not propose to support the amendments. Senator Walters —That does not surprise any of us. Senator MACKLIN —That is interesting. Senator Walters says that that does not surprise her. I do not see why it should be considered that we would want to support the amendments that have been circulated this morning by the Government. Senator Patterson —Read the Bill. Senator MACKLIN —If the honourable senator would listen to the debate instead of rushing in and out of the chamber, she would know that what I have said is that we wait until the committee stage. I want to ask the Government why it considers the amendments to be necessary. At the moment I do not consider them to be necessary. The Government will have to do a lot of arguing as to why it does. On the legal opinion that has been given to me, I do not believe that the Bill is flawed. We do not support an optional preferential method. We do not support the d'Hondt system. I have yet to consider the arguments regarding the amendments, but I do not mind ruling out that option because I do not like it. It does not worry me if I rule it out. If it worries the Opposition, that is up to it. Senator Chaney —For clarification, Senator, do you believe that it puts the New South Wales upper House at risk? Senator MACKLIN —While you were popping in and out, Senator, I said that the New South Wales upper House operation, with regard to the optional system, would probably be put at risk in this exercise. That does not worry me. We voted against it in the upper House in New South Wales. We will vote to change that. I understand that Mr Greiner is seeking to do that, so it does not worry me that that method will disappear. But I signal, in terms of Senator Chaney's interjection, that at the moment I am not sure because the opinion we were given differs from the opinion the Opposition was given. I believe that the Government ought to be able to bring forward more detailed arguments than it was able to bring forward to me in the short time that I had this morning talking to officers from the Attorney-General's Department. I did not accept the points they made to me at the time. I said that I would have to consider them, and I intend to consider them. On that basis, firstly, I believe that this is inappropriate and, at best, should have been brought forward after we had had a chance to see whether the propositions were flawed. Secondly, I will never enter into a censure of a government seeking to amend a Bill in this chamber. I believe that it is entirely appropriate that governments amend Bills in this chamber if they believe they are wrong. The last thing I will do is lend my vote to a proposition that the Government should pass through this chamber a Bill it believes to be incorrect. That is an utterly absurd proposition. Thirdly, one must hold to the proposition that what the Government proposes is not important-that what is important is what the Parliament proposes to the people. I would hope-and Senator Vanstone has done this in regard to this proposition-that it was the duty of every senator in this place to raise whatever difficulties they believed were in the legislation. In fact, a number of Opposition senators have already signalled their intention to do so with regard to a number of the clauses. That is what this chamber is about when in committee, and the other place is not. That is what makes this chamber worth preserving. It seems patently absurd to go around censuring because we should be carrying out our job or because somehow this chamber will simply be supine in the face of any legislation that this Government introduces or even that the Opposition, when in power, will introduce. This censure motion is shot through with illogicalities on that basis. It cannot be supported, and certainly cannot be supported at this time. If at a later stage the legislation is recast, it may be a totally different matter. But that later stage would certainly have to be after the committee stage of these Bills. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(3.33) —In his contribution Senator Puplick referred to Senator Tate trading on the considerable goodwill he had built up across the chamber. I would hate to do anything to dent the veritable welter of goodwill that I have engendered across the chamber in the last five years but, at the risk of doing so, might I say that the craven capitulation of Senator Puplick last week to the Queensland National Party is nothing compared with the complete cowardice shown by John Howard and Senator Chaney when it comes to doing anything to keep up the Queensland alliance. The bottom line for the Liberal Party of today is, `We will do anything to keep the Queensland Nationals in power. We do not care about our own Party. We will do anything to look after the Queensland Nationals. All principle will be forsaken as long as we can keep the Queensland Nationals in power'. I would like to engender a few facts into this debate, because they clearly demonstrate that the Government has attempted to make sure that there has been maximum time for debate not only about the constitutional amendment Bills but also about the system of government for the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). It has acted to make sure that that debate can take place in both the parliamentary sphere and in the community generally. Let us look at the history of the current situation. A possible model of ACT self-government was released by the responsible Minister, Gary Punch, on 13 April. The discussion paper was issued to provide a framework within which the public and interested organisations should give their views on what shape self-government should take before the Government finalised the proposals. Included in that possible model was the European d'Hondt system. Mr Punch has had very productive discussions with Senator Vanstone on that discussion paper. Because Senator Vanstone sought more information to allow her Party to properly consider the ramifications of the Government's proposal, Gary Punch, the responsible Minister, in the spirit of cooperation, gave her information in the form of drafting instructions. Three weeks after that discussion paper was released the Government introduced into this Parliament a Bill to alter the Constitution as it affects electoral systems not just in the ACT but right around Australia. Obviously, the final self-government model which will be adopted for the ACT must take into account not only the deliberations of the Parliament and the community discussions on the question of constitutional amendment but also the system proposed for the ACT itself. Again, the debate must take into account any other element of the model of ACT self-government. That is what the whole consultation process is about. Whether we are talking about Bills for self-government for the ACT or Bills to amend the Constitution, any senator would be aware that it is possible to amend them. That is what government is about. Senator Walters —You have made a mess of it. Senator RICHARDSON —I will get to Senator Walters, the queen of the banal interjection, in a moment. Any senator would be well and truly aware that legislation is introduced into the Parliament so that it can be reviewed. I have been a senator for but five years, but I would not know how many times in those five years I have seen the Government either introduce amendments to legislation of all kinds or accept them from the Opposition, from the Australian Democrats or from Independents. That is what government is about. This is a chamber of review. Far from being censured for the process that I have just outlined, the Government should be congratulated. No government should ever adopt the pose that it can get nothing wrong, that everything it does is perfect and that it should amend nothing. That is not what this Government has ever been about. Senator Chaney began this tedious bit of nonsense today with the great statement that the referendum proposals amount to nothing more than an attack on the powers of the Senate! The National Party has said that the proposals are supposed to gut the independence of the Senate-that they are a direct threat to the ability of the Senate to properly monitor legislation. We have been told that they are a major assault on the role and influence of the less populous States. All of this is camouflage for the real reason, which, as I said, is to do anything to protect the Queensland Nationals. Name one power of the Senate that is affected by the referendum proposals, if carried. Where is it suggested that the power of the Senate to amend or to examine any Bill is even touched upon? Nowhere in the legislation does that happen; nowhere could it happen. Can the Senate still block Supply? Of course it can still block Supply. The reality is that nothing changes except that all senators would come out with the House of Representatives. We are told that that is a really big deal. The Leader of the Opposition in the Senate (Senator Chaney) says-and, according to Senator Walters, he would not tell a lie-Senator Walters and others are saying, `All you have to do to get our support on this is to do a quick flip. We will have four years for the Senate and eight years for the House of Representatives'. Senator Crichton-Browne —It is a good start, my friend. Senator RICHARDSON —I thank the honourable senator. I knew I could count on him for a bit of help. I would like to quote Senator Walters. I would not like to do it often; I will not make a habit of it. But just today I will quote from the Senate Hansard of 8 December 1983. Senator Walters said: We are here for six years and I think six years is a long term for the people of Australia to elect senators. Then she said: I ask what Senator Evans is frightened of. Is he really frightened to put on the ballot paper that senators are to be elected for a term of eight years? He knows darn well that the people of Australia would not agree to that. Yet the Leader of the Opposition, Senator Walters and the Liberal Party now say, `If only you had made it four years and eight years we would all agree'. All of these things are a camouflage for the real reason, which is obvious to all. I might say that we have been told-- Senator Walters —Why do you not quote me more on the referendum? Senator RICHARDSON —No, I will resist, as I have other things to say. I will leave it to someone else to look after the honourable senator later. I am told by Senator Chaney-and we heard some reference to this from Senator Puplick-that the reason that the Senate is not sitting next week is that the Labor Party will be in conference in Hobart. I have to inform the Senate that to sit next week we would be flat out trying to keep anyone from the Opposition in Australia. Opposition members will be spread all over the globe. We would not be able to find them. God knows what it would cost the Parliament to get them back. Senator Walters —Mr President, I take a point of order. I would like to challenge Senator Richardson to try it. The PRESIDENT —Order! There is no point of order. Senator RICHARDSON —As I was saying, I do not know how we would get them back from all around the globe. Senator Puplick made reference to Labor Party senators trying to get trips. All of my poor forlorn colleagues whom I saw lined up on the platform trying to get onto that gravy train found out that the carriages were full. They were full because members of the Opposition were all in them. It was the Opposition that decided a long time ago to get out of here as early as it could and head for the hills. And what lovely far away hills members of the Opposition are heading for. Every garden spot on the globe will have some of them in it. This is what will be happening while we, of course, are at work in Hobart serving the people. I also want to refer to some remarks of Senator Puplick. We should never forget the honourable senator in these debates. He said that self-government is all about a Labor Party rort for the ACT. I thought we were in this position because the Liberal Party supported the Government in introducing the d'Hondt system. Senator Puplick and his colleagues all agree. If it is a Labor Party rort, it must have been pretty okay for the Liberal Party as well. The reality is that it had nought to do with rorts and everything to do with achieving a system we can all agree on for self-government in the ACT. Both sides have always mouthed the platitudes about introducing for self-government in the ACT. But when it came down to the nitty-gritty, they could not agree. Finally, when we get a Minister like Gary Punch who can come up with a proposal that all sides can agree with, we then get Senator Puplick standing up and saying that it is a Labor Party rort. I might say that at least we all get to talk to each other at our conferences. We will all be able to talk to each other at Hobart next week. Senator Puplick is just a nose pressed up against the windowpane at the Liberal Party's national conference. Not that it would matter if he were inside, because there is no such thing, of course, as that conference having any power. Mind you, looking at the decisions it has made, thank God it does not have a lot of power. The only thing that we saw achieved at the Liberal Party national conference was the fourth reconciliation between John Howard and John Elliott. I think it lasted two days, which made it a little longer than the previous three. Senator Crichton-Browne —How do you get on with Peter Cook? Senator RICHARDSON —I am getting along very well with Senator Cook, an esteemed colleague with a great knowledge of government and, I might say, a forward thinking view of the environment. I turn to the other great line that we have had from Senator Puplick about the Labor Party dishonouring promises. Let me say that when it comes to dishonouring promises, Senator Puplick pioneered the experience. He has explored the territory of dishonoured promises better than anyone ever. He has taken it to new heights or, should I say, new depths. Nowhere can anyone remember in this Parliament anyone walking away from his promises on the environment as Senator Puplick has done. Not only that, but you will recall, Mr President, what I said last week when we were looking at the whole debate on World Heritage. Senator Puplick had once again been run over by the National bulldozer. He gave up and laid down and died. Just like Senator Chaney on the one vote one value question, he could not hack the argument. I quoted back to Senator Puplick his words of less than a year ago when he said: If I cannot make the Liberal Party greener, I would regard it as a significant personal failure. I would have no choice but to resign. Senator Chaney —On a point of order, Mr President: I raise the matter of relevance. It is quite clear that the Minister is simply engaging in a general round of abuse on any subjects he can think of, and which have no relation to the matter which is the subject of the censure motion. The PRESIDENT —A lot of speakers have ranged very widely in the debate. I said that I would allow that. But I remind Senator Richardson that this is a censure debate. There is no point of order. Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr President. Senator Chaney addressed much of his contribution to the question of one vote one value. In saying that I believe that the whole Liberal Party tactic in the motion before the Senate today and in the referendum Bills is about maintaining a deal with the Queensland Nationals which amounts to lying down before them, I want to quote one John Howard, not from a speech of a long time ago but from a Brisbane radio interview this morning. He said: I don't have any disagreement with the Queensland Liberal Party about the electoral re-distribution in Queensland. It is loaded against the Liberal Party, it is unfair. I am against the zoning system . . . but my disagreement with my colleagues is not about that but about the way to get rid of it. I believe it should only be got rid of in the Queensland Parliament- where, of course, the Queensland Nationals have the numbers and will not get rid of it. That is the depth of the commitment of the Liberal Party of Australia to fair elections. What it is about here today is to do anything whatsoever to disrupt debate and to delay. Who in Australia who has listened to Parliament in the last week could doubt that the Constitution amendment Bills have been debated ad nauseam. Speaker after speaker has been up in this place taking up, as is his right, the time of this Senate on this question. No Bills will ever have been debated like these Bills. Yet, it is claimed that the Government is rushing them through. The reality is that the Senate will take all the time that it needs. The Government does not have the numbers to force the legislation through. All honourable senators will get their go. Mind you, most of them have had several already. At the end of the day, that is what democracy is about. We have to make sure that senators can debate the legislation. We are not so proud as to say that we can never get anything wrong. Unlike Senator Chaney and the Liberal Party, if it were shown that in Queensland the legislation could be got around by making divisions and weighting voters differently, why would we not introduce an amendment? We are determined that in Queensland and in the whole of Australia voters will get equal rights. We are determined that there will be one vote one value across the country and fair elections. Fair elections is what the Labor Party is about; it is what the Liberal Party cannot stomach because it cannot do anything but agree with the Queensland Nationals. Looking at the record of the Queensland Nationals, it is pathetic to think that they set the standard for the Liberal Party of the 1980s and the 1990s. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(3.47) —The Senate is addressing the following motion of the Leader of the Opposition (Senator Chaney): That the Senate censures the Government for its incompetence in negligently proposing to the people of Australia constitutional reform the full consequences of which had not been considered and which the Government is now proposing to amend. Mr President, if I have ever supported a censure motion on individuals, it has been rarely. I rarely support censure motions in so far as governments are concerned. But I support the motion which is now before the Senate. Not only has the Government shown that it is incompetent because if was prepared to put this referendum question forward as a proposition, ram it through the House of Representatives, bring it before the Senate and put it to the people in a defective form, but also the other proposals, the full ramifications of which have not been considered, are defective. The debate thus far has centred on the second proposal. But what about the first proposal? Let me remind the Senate what the Attorney-General of Australia, Mr Lionel Bowen, said on A.M. on 11 May 1988. He said that the first proposal was about the question of the Senate's power to block Supply. Let me read what I asked Senator Tate during the debate on Thursday last. I asked: Am I to understand that the principal reason advanced by the Government for this measure- that is to say, the first proposal- is that it would do something to solve the problems of the Senate blocking Supply? Senator Tate replied: No, this proposal does not attempt to address that problem. Further on, he said: We do not attempt to address the question of Supply at all. Let me quote what the Attorney-General said of that proposal. He said: But, in other words, what we've got to face up to is the Senate's ability to force the House of Representatives election by refusing Supply. Who is deceiving? Who is attempting to mislead? Is Senator Tate attempting to mislead the Parliament, or is the Attorney-General of this country attempting to mislead the people? Or are we to conclude that the Attorney-General of this country-and I am not given to harsh descriptions-is merely a dill? Is his Department serving him and the country well? Quite obviously it is not. He and his Department are not able to get their act together on these referenda or in a number of other areas that the Senate has dealt with. I give two examples. The Senate Select Committee on Video Material asked for a moratorium on X-rated videos while the Joint Committee was considering the matter. What did Lionel Bowen do? He ignored it. On whose advice did he do that? On the advice of his Department. He did not even know what the material contained or the harmful effects it has and has been shown to have, as a result of the evidence brought before the Joint Committee. What did the Senate have to do to the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department? We had to move a motion saying that the description of the recommendations of the Senate Select Committee on the Human Embryo Experimentation Bill was incorrect. That is an almost unprecedented act of the Senate, but we had to move-and it was adopted by the Senate-a motion that said that the annual report of the Attorney-General's Department was faulty and attempted to mislead this Parliament as to the nature of that Senate Select Committee's report. Let me go to the fourth question, concerning freedom of religion. Honourable senators will remember that last Tuesday I addressed the Senate about the question of freedom of religion. I listened carefully to Senator Tate's response and not one of the points I raised in this chamber was addressed by him. I suspect he knows that I have been accurate in my concerns. That proposal for freedom of religion in fact is an attempt to establish an impenetrable wall which will separate and isolate religious adherents. Why do I say that? If we had a High Court Bench of Murphys, as was the intention of the previous Attorney-General, Senator Evans, that is precisely what would have occurred because the fourth proposal is to extend the provisions of section section 116 of the Constitution to make it applicable to the States. Section 116-the so-called freedom of religion section-was relied upon, although these are not the words in the margin of the Constitution. It does not say that at all. The referendum question is: Do you agree to the extension of freedom of religion? That is the question the people of Australia are going to be asked. The attempt is being made in the Bill to extend section 116 to apply to the States. Who relied upon section 116? Do honourable senators remember the Defence of Government Schools (DOGS) case? The sectarians attempted to use section 116 to cut off funds for poor parochial schools, just as has been done in the United States of America. One might ask: What has the United States of America got to to with this? Let me quote what Mr Justice Murphy said in his judgment, which would have cut off the provision of education funding to schools. He said: Section 116 is very similar to, and obviously taken from, the provisions of the United States Constitution, and the prohibition added against laws `for imposing any religious observance'. That is what he said-and it is understood that that is what is involved. What is the latest situation in the United States of America? Under the 1985 high court case of Aguilar v. Felton even handicapped children in Catholic parochial schools are not entitled to have a remedial teacher come from the government to teach them. They must be segregated from those schools and put into caravans outside the precincts of the schools, and then they are able to gain the teachers. Senator Chaney —That is called freedom from religion as against freedom of religion. Senator HARRADINE —That is called the erection of an impenetrable wall which will isolate and discriminate against the adherents of religion. One thing was possible in the DOGS case and that was that section 96 could have applied; that is, that the funds were paid to the States and therefore were beyond the reach of section 116. But now the Government is making sure that that defence is not available to par- ochial schools in this country. I am going to ask Senator Tate-and I have asked him previously-whether he can give a guarantee that what has occurred in the United States as the result of an almost identical provision will not apply in this country. I believe this motion is very appropriate. The Government was prepared to ram the Bill through the House of Representatives and, if it could not get a majority here, to ram it through the Senate; then put it, in a defective form, to the people. This legislation is not just like an ordinary Bill. The Government has defended itself by saying, `We do this all the time. We amend legislation here and there. What is different?'. I will tell honourable senators what is different about this legislation. We are dealing not only with a Bill but also with a Constitution. Once these propositions are in, they are set in concrete. None of us will be able to do anything about that, nor will the electors because they cannot recall us for what we have done. Who is then to decide on these matters? It will be the High Court. Who knows whether in future we might get a bench full of Murphys? Even if we do not, let us remember what a great man, a chief judge of Tasmania, said and if anyone knows judges it is their brother or sister judges. On 24 June 1978 at the Thomas More Quincentenary, he said: I do not wish to be misunderstood when I say that I do not think it possible to establish a Court which we could trust with such a solemn judicial task. He was referring to a Bill of Rights of the type we are talking about here concerning freedom of religion. He went on: The interpretation and application by any Court of fundamental laws necessarily expressed in wide general terms leaves an immense area for the exercise of judicial discretion and for sharp differences of opinion between judges . . . Nor can many decisions in this area be based on bare legal reasoning. The personal attributes of the judge will often be stronger factors in moulding his opinion-his social, religious, political, philosophical and cultural backgrounds and beliefs. Complete objectivity is impossible. That is a chief judge speaking. He continued: Judges who are entrusted with the solemn task of judicial review of Acts of Parliament to determine whether they should be declared void as infringing fundamental laws inevitably become legislators; legislators who are beyond the control of the democratic will . . . He concluded-and I will conclude with his words: I would prefer the democratic control of legislation through the political sanction of the ballot box and a strong second Chamber of Parliament to handing over a substantial measure of control of legislation to a judicial tribunal of a few men-eminent in their profession and men of integrity and wisdom though they may be. Judges are but men and are as subject to subtle corruption by the exercise of great power as other men. Senator CHANEY(Western Australia-Leader of the Opposition)(4.00) —in reply-I thank Senator Harradine for his support of the censure motion which has been moved by the Opposition. In responding to the speeches which have been made by Government members, I simply wish to say that the Government in no way sought to make a defence to the allegation in the motion that the Government has negligently proposed to the people of Australia constitutional referenda, the full consequences of which had not been considered and which the Government is now proposing to amend. There are two remarkable things about the debate. Senator Tate, the Minister for Justice, who is responsible for the Bills in this House, did not take part in the debate. Senator Puplick —He was not allowed to take part in the debate. Senator CHANEY —My colleague Senator Puplick interjects that he was not allowed to take part in the debate. That may well be the true position, but the situation is that the Minister who is responsible and who has been part of advising us that these Bills are defective did not stand in his place and defend the record of the Government with respect to these constitutional referenda. Senator Michael Baume —He is too honest to want to do so. Senator CHANEY —Senator Michael Baume says that he is too honest to do so; again, that may well be the case. But Senator Robert Ray and Senator Richardson had no difficulty in coming in here and making a series of arguments which bore no relation at all to the complaint against the Government. After a debate which was full of red herrings and, on the part of Government speakers, allegations that we were raising red herrings, I just wish to analyse the points that Government speakers have put forward. Principally Senator Ray, and in part Senator Richardson, relied upon attempts to suggest that Opposition senators-particularly Senator Walters and I-had taken different stances on constitutional matters from those which we are taking on the current referenda. Senator Walters took a point of order on that and certainly by way of interjection made her position clear. I would like to make the position clear again. Senator Ray was quoting from debates on a quite different referendum which proposed that there should be simultaneous referendums and no interference with the Senate having two terms of the House of Representatives. On the other hand, if we are going to regard that as the way to measure this debate, can I remind the Senate, as indeed my colleague Senator Short did when we last debated these matters on 26 May, that Senator Tate spoke in this place and supported Bills brought into the House by his colleague, Senator Gareth Evans, which supported the Senate getting a maximum fixed term of eight years. In the field of consistency I think that is much more clearly a quite contrary proposition to the one that Senator Tate is now putting forward than the simultaneous elections proposal of 1977. I want in this response to reject thoroughly the suggestion of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) that it has some mortgage on honesty in the matter of electoral redistribution. I want to quote from the document which was submitted to the then Premier of Western Australia, the Hon. Brian Burke, by his Minister who was responsible for electoral affairs, Mr Arthur Tonkin, and who resigned from that Government because of the attitude adopted by the Burke Government in 1986 to electoral reform. This is what a Labor Minister had to say about the Labor State Government in Western Australia. I will quote his letter of resignation: To hear my colleagues say, as they did in Geraldton on Sunday night, that we must make absolutely sure that the bill, which will contain the promises we had made to the people at the election, is defeated was to hear betrayed all that I have tried to stand for as a member of the Australian Labor Party. The fact that I made the promise on the part of the Government makes my own position untenable. I had never thought it possible that I would hear such a betrayal of basic Labor principles from people whom I believed were my comrades in arms. I cannot continue to serve in a Government from which I feel totally alienated. Further, I believe that such an insincere attitude to the question of electoral reform will be communicated to the people. This will have a disastrous effect upon the Government and upon the cause of electoral reform. This is the final quote I wish to give from what is a much longer letter: If our main purpose is to stay in Government and if we are prepared to be corrupted in the pursuit of that imperative, then we much part company. What Mr Tonkin was saying to his fellow Labor Party members in Western Australia was that they were treading a cynical path which had been trodden by previous Labor governments in Western Australia and he regarded that as a matter which rendered it impossible for him to stay as a member of the Government. All of that I raise purely because these matters have been raised in debate by the Government. They have nothing to do with the allegation of incompetence which is the substance of this motion against the Government this afternoon. The fact of the matter is that the Government has introduced, under the guise or under the name of a fair elections Bill, proposals which, as I have said before in debate, do not apply to anything other than the State legislatures. Our charge against the Government initially was that it had been dishonest in bringing this forward in this way because it singled out the State upper and lower Houses for attention that it was not prepared to give to the Senate and to the House of Representatives. It was imposing a set of rules quite inconsistently; that is, applying one set of rules to the States and another to the Commonwealth. Quite apart from the question of the rights of the States to determine their own electoral arrangements-a matter which is seen of fundamental importance by the coalition-the fact is that this Government was being utterly inconsistent in what it was bringing forward. The hypocrisy of the Government is clearly demonstrated by the fact that when Senator Amanda Vanstone produced evidence that the proposals that the Government was imposing upon the States would, in fact, interfere with its own proposals here in the Australian Capital Territory, the Government promptly announced that it would adopt a different attitude to this referendum. In other words, the Government is prepared to except from the requirements of the present legislation and to alter in the present legislation anything which it believes serves its own political advantage and the arrangements which are proposed for the Australian Capital Territory are simply one case in point. We have the very interesting situation where the Government is also, under the existing Bill, putting at risk the New South Wales upper House which has a method of election for upper House members which is not as near as possible to that of the Senate. We have the situation where the Government, because that system suits the ALP in New South Wales and because it does not see that as a difficulty for the Labor Party, is now bringing in amendments which will cover that situation again. I think the premier charge against the Government until these defects were discovered in this legislation was that the Government was hypocritical in its attitude to constitutional reform, that it was seeking to advance its own narrow political interests rather than the national interest. But what has been demonstrated over the last few days since Senator Vanstone disclosed these defects is that the Government has not only been hypocritical; it has been incompetent as well. We take the view that the Government is to be censured because of the importance of the Constitution and because of the sorts of reasons that were put so forcefully by Senator Harradine in the last speech before I rose in my place. The Opposition believes that this motion should be carried and that the Government should not be proceeding with these referenda at this time. Question put: That the motion (Senator Chaney's) be agreed to. The Senate divided. (The President-Senator the Hon. Kerry Sibraa) Ayes . . . . . . . . . . . 34 Noes . . . . . . . . . . . 39 —— Majority . . . . . . . . . 5 —— Alston, R. K. R. McGauran, J. J.Archer, B. R. MacGibbon, D. J.Baume, Michael Messner, A. J.Baume, Peter Newman, J. M.Bishop, B. K. Panizza, J. H.Bjelke-Petersen, F. I. Parer, W. R.Boswell, R. L. D. Patterson, K. C. L.Calvert, P. H. Puplick, C. J. L.Chaney, F. M. Reid, M. E.Chapman, H. G. P. Sheil, G.Crichton-Browne, N. A. Short, J. R.Durack, P. D. Stone, J. O.Hamer, D. J. Tambling, G. E. J. (Teller)Harradine, B. Teague, B. C.Hill, R. M. Vanstone, A. E.Knowles, S. C. Walters, M. S.Lewis, A. W. R. Watson, J. O. W. Aulich, T. G. Haines, J.Beahan, M. E. Jenkins, J. A.Black, J. R. McKiernan, J. P. (Teller)Bolkus, N. McLean, P. A.Burns, B. R. McMullan, R. F.Button, J. N. Macklin, M. J.Childs, B. K. Maguire, G. R.Coates, J. Morris, J. J.Collins, R. L. Powell, J. F.Colston, M. A. Ray, RobertCook, P. F. S. Reynolds, M.Cooney, B. C. Richardson, G. F.Coulter, J. R. Sanders, N. K.Crowley, R. A. Schacht, C. C.Devereux, J. R. Sibraa, K. W.Devlin, A. R. Tate, M. C.Evans, Gareth Vallentine, J.Foreman, D. J. Walsh, P. A.Gietzelt, A. T. Zakharov, A. O.Giles, P. J. Brownhill, D. G. C. Jones, G. N. Question so resolved in the negative. Motion (by Senator Bolkus)-by leave-agreed to: That the Order of the Senate of 13 April 1988, relating to the introduction of Bills into the Senate after 24 May 1988, not apply to the following Bills: Aviation Fuel Revenues (Special Appropriations) Bill 1988 Migration Amendment Bill 1988 Departure Tax Amendment Bill 1988 Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988 Commonwealth Authorities Legislation (Pay-roll Tax) Amendment Bill 1988 Primary Industries (Recovery of Levy Collection Expenses) Bill 1988 National Health Amendment Bill 1988 Local Government (Financial Assistance) Bill 1988 Fertilisers Subsidy Amendment Bill 1988 Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988 Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.17) —I move- That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to provide for the payment to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) of its share of the revenue received from excise and customs tariff duties on aviation gasoline-avgas. For many years revenue from excise and customs tariff duties on avgas have been attributable for aviation cost recovery purposes. That is, utilised to offset the costs incurred by the Government in providing airport and airways facilities and services to the aviation industry. Avgas excise revenues have generally been used to recover the cost of providing en route airways facilities and services. In 1986-87, however, the Government adopted the suggestion of general aviation representative associations that avgas excise be utilised as the main means of recovering all costs from that sector of the aviation industry. A special avgas fuel excise surcharge was therefore introduced from 1 July 1987 to replace the previous fixed annual lump sum charge. Avgas is the fuel used by most general aviation aircraft. Recent joint reviews with industry of general aviation charging arrangements have concluded that avgas excise is an efficient means of collecting revenue from general aviation aircraft without adverse safety consequences. It is currently not possible to replace avgas excise with direct user charges because of the difficulty of recording movements of avgas aircraft. If the CAA is to have access to this efficient and widely supported charging arrangement, it is necessary for the revenue received by the Government from avgas excise and customs tariff duties to be paid to the CAA. The Bill implements this. Not all avgas excise revenue will be paid to the CAA. The fuel excise surcharge introduced from 1 July 1987 was utilised to recover the costs of both airways functions that will transfer to the CAA and some airport functions that will remain the responsibility of the Federal Government. Accordingly the Bill provides that the amount allocable to airport functions (2.393 cents/litre) plus future indexation of this amount be retained by the Government as an attributable revenue. The Bill will have no impact on the level of avgas excise and customs tariff duties payable by avgas aircraft operators. Approximately $22.2m of estimated total receipts in 1988-89 of $24.7m will be paid to the CAA. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bills received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bills may proceed without formalities, may be considered together and be now read a first time. Bills read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.18) —I move: That the Bills be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speeches incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speeches read as follows- MIGRATION AMENDMENT BILL 1988 The Bill contains amendments to the Migration Act 1958 to implement a recent decision to repeal the immigration clearance fee, which was introduced to offset certain costs incurred by or for the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs in dealing with international air passengers. The Australian immigration clearance fee was introduced into the Migration Act 1958 in 1987. It was modelled on the clearance fee operating in the USA and requires adult passengers on international flights seeking to enter Australia after 1 January 1988 to pay a fee for the services relating to their immigration clearance. The scheme provides for the fee to be collected, and paid to the Commonwealth, by the International airline operator who brought the passengers to Australia, whether or not the airline collected the fee. Most but not all, international airlines operating in the Australian market protested about the immigration clearance fee. Indeed there is currently High Court action to test the validity of the fee and the airlines' liabilities under the Act. The Government contends that much, if not all of the claimed shortfall in fees could have been made good by the airlines changing their administrative arrangements towards those used in the USA by many of the same airlines. The Government now proposes however to abolish the current $5 fee. The international air operators will continue to be liable to remit to the Commonwealth the fee payable by all passengers carried to Australia before 30 June 1988. The Bill also will enable the Minister to limit the range of officers of the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs and officers for the purposes of the Customs Act 1901 who may exercise the powers granted by the Migration Act 1958. As the Migration Act 1958 currently stands, all such officers have very wide-ranging powers, so that, for example, even the most junior officers, irrespective of their duties or responsibilities, could validly issue an entry permit to a person seeking entry to Australia, arrest a person suspected of being a prohibited non-citizen, or search aircraft and ships for stowaways or persons suspected of seeking to enter Australia illegally. It is clearly inappropriate for all officers to have such considerable powers. It is more appropriate that such wide-ranging powers should flow from the administrative necessities and the appropriate responsibilities. To remedy this the Minister is to be given a discretion to exclude an officer or a class of officer, from the exercise of certain powers. This exclusion is to be made in writing. To bring the power to grant an entry permit into line with the power to grant a visa, the Bill amends section 6 of the Migration Act to provide that only an `authorised officer', that is a person authorised by the Minister, can issue an entry permit to a person seeking entry to Australia. The abolition of the immigration clearance fee ($5) from 1 July 1988 should be viewed in the context that the Government has agreed that a $5 share of the new and reduced departure tax of $10 will be notionally allocated towards migration costs incurred in processing international passengers. The revenue from such an allocation is estimated to be $18.45m in 1988-89, which roughly equates to revenue forgone from repealing the immigration clearance fee. I present the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. This contains details of the amendments I have outlined. I commend this Bill to the Senate. DEPARTURE TAX AMENDMENT BILL 1988 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the rate of departure tax contained in the Departure Tax Act 1978 from $20 per passenger to $10 per passenger. The proposed new arrangements taken together with a measure contained in a separate Bill to abolish the $5 immigration clearance fee will be welcomed by travellers, who from 1 July will only have to pay $10 when leaving Australia, rather than $25 as at present. The financial implications of the new departure tax and associated administrative arrangements for its collection are covered in the second reading speech on the Departure Tax Collection Bill, and I propose that the two Bills be debated cognately. I commend this Bill and draw attention to the fact that there is a single explanatory memorandum which covers this Bill and the Departure Tax Collection Amendment Bill 1988. DEPARTURE TAX COLLECTION AMENDMENT BILL 1988 The purpose of this Bill is to amend the Departure Tax Collection Act 1978 to transfer responsibility for the collection of departure tax from international air operators to the Government. Collection by the airlines is no longer appropriate following the Government's decision that departure tax revenue will no longer be part of the overall cost recovery formula for the aviation industry. The proposed new arrangements taken together with measures contained in separate Bills to abolish the $5 immigration clearance fee and to halve the amount of departure tax from $20 to $10 will be welcomed by travellers, who from 1 July will only have to pay $10 in such fees when leaving Australia, rather than $25 as at present. The Bill allows the Minister for Transport and Communications to appoint approved agents to sell departure tax stamps and issue exemption stamps on the Commonwealth's behalf. Australia Post currently has a contract with the airlines to collect the tax. As the new tax is to be collected for general revenue purposes, it is appropriate that the Department of Transport and Communications make provision in its budget to take over from the airlines the remaining two years of their current contract with Australia Post and associated costs. Consultations with Australia Post have been undertaken to ensure that the new collection arrangements will be implemented with as little inconvenience to travellers as possible. The principal amendments to the Departure Tax Collection Act are the transferring of responsibility for collection of the tax, contained in clause 4; the repealing of responsibilities of international air operators as set out in clause 5; and the provision within clause 6 for approved agents to be appointed under the regulations to sell and issue tax and exemption stamps to passengers. The Departure Tax Collection Regulations will be amended to incorporate the new arrangements. With regard to the financial impact of the proposed legislation, the estimated collection costs for 1988-89 are $2.5m. This includes the contract cost of Australia Post collecting the tax, as well as additional ongoing administrative costs to the Government arising from the proposal. Revenue from the sale of departure tax stamps at the rate of $10 per passenger is estimated at $36.9m in 1988-89, or $34.4m net after deduction of estimated collection costs. I commend the Bill. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.19) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to a decision that from 1 July 1988 Commonwealth government business enterprises currently exempted from State and Territory pay-roll taxes be liable for such taxes. This is in line with the general principle adopted by the Government that such enterprises be subject to taxation on the same basis as private business. The enterprises to become subject to State and Territory pay-roll taxes as a result of this decision are: Australian National Railways Civil Aviation Authority Federal Airports Corporation Australia Post Telecom. At present the legislation providing for establishment of the enterprises concerned in each case provides for the enterprises being exempted from State and Territory taxation. The Bill contains amendments to the relevant legislation so that the exemption will not apply to State and Territory pay-roll taxes. The amendments are set out in the Schedule to the Bill. They are to become effective on 1 July 1988. Financial Impact The annual pay-roll tax liability of the authorities concerned is estimated at about $220m. In recognition of this increase in revenue to the States, the Commonwealth's payments to the States for the year will be reduced. This reduction will not be by the full amount but by approximately 90% of the total amount of pay-roll tax involved. This should amount to just under $200m. Relative to the revenues of the enterprises involved, the additional costs to those enterprises arising from this measure are not great. Claims of enormous increases in charges as a result of this move therefore must be treated as either uninformed or else deliberate exaggerations. I commend the Bill and present the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.20) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The purpose of this Bill is to amend existing legislation in order to allow the Commonwealth to recover the administrative costs it incurs in collecting and disbursing receipts from agricultural industry levies. Honourable Senators may be aware that industry contributions to the operations of various authorities, and to research programs, are made through industry levies and charges imposed under Commonwealth taxation legislation. Most levies and charges are collected and disbursed at Commonwealth expense, which is estimated to be 0.2 per cent of total collections, or $1.193m, in a full year. The absence of cost recovery for this service represents a hidden subsidy to industry. In the interests of transparency, it is desirable that the costs of collection be identified so that policy can be assessed in the light of their true full costs. Since the levies exist at the request, and for the benefit, of the relevant industries, it is appropriate that the industries not only be aware of but also pay the administration costs. If an industry genuinely requires assistance, this should be provided directly to the area of identified need, in contrast to the imprecise approach of subsidising industry in general for the cost of levy collection. Making industries aware of collection costs, and requiring that they meet these costs, will undoubtedly increase the level of accountability of both the Commonwealth, as the collection agent, and industry, as the beneficiary of this service. In the case of levies which fund the operations of statutory authorities, it is proposed that collection costs be recovered by way of fee payable by those authorities. In the case of research levies, the cost will be recovered from research trust accounts. In the first instance, the payment will be made at the end of the financial year. In future years it is intended to seek quarterly, and in some cases monthly, payments. It is proposed that these cost recovery arrangements take effect from the financial year 1988-89. This measure will produce revenue totalling $1.193m during 1988-89; this figure represents the full year cost of the levy collection. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.21) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill before the Senate, being one of a number of Bills resulting from the May economic statement, amends the National Health Act to increase the maximum general patient contribution for prescribed drugs supplied under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme from the present $10 to $11. The increase in the general patient contribution from $10 to $11 is estimated to achieve savings of $12.5m in 1988-89 and $14.3m in a full financial year. The Bill provides that the increase take effect from 1 July 1988. The $1 increase in the maximum general contribution is not an increase in real terms. By 1 July the increase will be less than the increase in the CPI since the contribution was last adjusted in November 1986. The increase is also less than half the growth in average drug prices over the period. Honourable senators will note that the Government has continued to support those in need by maintaining both free pharmaceutical benefits for all pensioners and the concessional beneficiary rate of $2.50. Furthermore the `safety net' scheme continues to provide protection for the chronically ill ensuring that no family need pay for more than 25 prescriptions each calendar year. In 1987, the first full year of the safety net, 500,000 families and single individuals received free pharmaceuticals under the safety net. As announced in the Treasurer's May economic statement the increase in the maximum general patient contribution is but one of a number of measures that the Government is taking to restrain the growth in expenditure of the pharmaceutical benefits scheme. In 1987-88 this expenditure increased by 25% over the previous year. Clearly the Government had to act to rein in this unacceptable rate of increase-a rate of increase that would have seen expenditure on pharmaceutical benefits almost double over the next three years. The steps announced in the May statement will reduce this rate of growth to an estimated 12% in 1988-89, although this will not prevent expenditure exceeding $1 billion next financial year. In addition to the $1 increase in the maximum general patient contribution, the Government is taking steps to reduce prescribing of expensive drugs and to reduce dispensing costs. As these measures do not involve amendments to the National Health Act I shall not discuss them in detail in this debate. Details have been announced in the Treasurer's statement and associated documents. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.22) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Bill provides for an increase in the level of general purpose financial assistance being provided for local government in 1988-89. The 1988-89 level of assistance is to be $652.5m. This compares with local government's entitlement in 1987-88 of $636.7m. It is necessary to amend the Local Government (Financial Assistance) Act 1986 because of changes regarding general purpose payments to the States which were agreed at the recent Premiers Conference. Under that Act, general purpose financial assistance for local government, for 1988-89, and subsequent years, was to be determined by changing the amount with respect to the previous year, by the percentage change to Commonwealth general purpose payments to the States. For this purpose, general purpose payments to the States was defined by the Act, under section 6 (5) (a), to include financial assistance grants, identified health grants and general purpose capital assistance payments. Changes to the funding of hospital services agreed to at the recent Premiers Conference has meant the elimination of the category `identified health grants' from 1988-89. So that local government is not unintentionally disadvantaged by this change the Government has decided to include in the act an amount in lieu of the existing formula. The amount of $652.5m represents a 2.5% increase over local government's entitlement in 1987-88 of $636.7m. It is a greater increase than would have occurred had the present formula not been amended. This approach would have yielded payments to local government of some $95m less than the proposed payment. The payment will also be some $10m more than if local government funding had been constrained to the increase agreed for the States and Northern Territory at the Premiers Conference. As a result, the increase in payments of 2.5% compares favourably with the increase in comparable payments to the States and the Northern Territory which for the next financial year are anticipated to rise by only 1.1%. Given the Government's continuing need to restrain its own expenditure this Bill provides a fair outcome for local government. It is evidence of the Government's continuing commitment to strengthening local government's place in the Australian system of government and gives effect to the Government's undertaking to treat local government no less favourably than the States in respect of general purpose financial assistance. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.23) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- This Bill puts into effect the termination of the consumption subsidies for phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers as from July 1 1988 as announced by the Treasurer in the May economic statement. Over recent years the Government has assisted farmers through the provision of a consumption subsidy on phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers manufactured in Australia. A bounty has been paid on domestically produced phosphatic fertilisers for much of the period since 1931, while consumption of nitrogenous fertilisers has been subsidised since 1966. The principal reasons for the continuing payment of the fertiliser bounty/consumption subsidies have included: assisting the rural sector when it was experiencing difficult times; and encouraging productivity gains in the rural sector from the increased application of fertilisers; More recently the subsidies have been compensating the rural sector for the cost impost which the sector suffers as a result of tariff protection for manufacturing industry. However, none of these reasons provides a convincing justification for continuation of the fertiliser subsidies in the present circumstances. The first of these reasons, to assist the rural sector when it was experiencing difficult times, suggests that the fertiliser consumption subsidies might be seen as similar to a rural welfare payment: that is, a payment by the Government to help alleviate falling returns or increasing costs being experienced by farmers. The first point to make in this context is that while the rural sector has undoubtedly experienced some very difficult times during the last few years, the current outlook, particularly for the livestock industries, is more buoyant. The Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Research Economics has estimated that the cash operating surplus of farms will rise by about 49 per cent in 1987-88, with most of the increase occurring because of higher returns to wool growing. While incomes of specialist grain producers are still low, these farmers are also expected to have rising incomes over the next few years as the outlook for most major rural commodities is for either stable or increasing prices. However, quite apart from whether there is currently a need for the Government to assist the rural sector, there is also an important question as to whether fertiliser subsidies are an efficient way of providing rural assistance. Work undertaken by the former Bureau of Agricultural Economics, reported in 1984, showed that the assistance provided by the fertiliser subsidies was very unevenly distributed. Based on a 1980-81 survey of agricultural and grazing industries, almost 25 per cent of the farms in the survey did not use fertiliser, and so these farms received no assistance. A further 42 per cent received assistance worth less than $300. Only 9 per cent of farms received over $1,000 of assistance. It is thus clear that the payment of this subsidy is simply not an effective welfare measure. I turn now to the second reason which has been used to justify the continuation of the fertiliser subsidies, namely, to assist the rural sector to become more productive. The logic behind this argument is that the consumption subsidies lower the price of fertiliser and that farmers will respond to the lower price by applying more fertiliser, thereby raising agricultural productivity. In its November 1984 submission to the Industries Assistance Commission inquiries into assistance for the consumption and production of fertilisers, the Bureau of Agricultural Economics quoted a number of economic research studies covering a span of 8 years which showed that the demand for fertiliser is relatively price inelastic, but that demand does appear to vary with farm income and liquidity. In other words the demand for fertiliser is unlikely to be influenced to any great extent by the price of fertilisers, but will be influenced by the farm's overall financial position. This claim is backed up by the current situation in which rising farm incomes and a favourable seasonal outlook for much of the continent have resulted in fertiliser manufacturers currently experiencing a high level of demand for their products. Assuming that the relationship between price and demand continues to apply, it can be concluded that continued provision of the fertiliser consumption subsidies will not lead to much increase in the purchase of fertilisers. In fact, the lack of sensitivity of fertiliser consumption to the price of fertilisers may be very fortunate for the productivity of Australian agriculture. If the subsidies were more effective they would encourage resources to be allocated to fertiliser application rather than other farm inputs. In doing so they would distort the pattern of resource allocation in Australian agriculture. As an example of the problems which these resource allocation distortions can create, there is increasing evidence that excessive application of fertilisers can lead to reduced gains in productivity arising from problems with soil acidification. Some of Australia's most productive agricultural lands are suffering these problems and the farmers concerned have to apply large quantities of lime or other substances to the soil to neutralise it. This is an expensive solution, and to the extent that the fertiliser consumption subsidies encourage the excessive use of fertilisers, the subsidies contribute to this problem. Another example of resource misallocation to which the fertiliser subsidies have contributed is the excessive cropping of marginal lands. In some cases the viability of cropping operations on marginal lands has depended on the application of large quantities of subsidised fertilisers. From the economy-wide perspective, resources used to develop the marginal land could have been more productively used in other applications. Quite apart from the economic misallocation of resources which arise in these circumstances, there are also frequently environmental problems from over-cropping, such as degradation of soil structure and subsequent soil erosion, removal of trees followed by increasing levels of salt in the soil, and so on. Once again, the fertiliser subsidies have contributed to these problems. The third reason which has been used to justify continuation of the fertiliser consumption subsidies is to compensate the rural sector for the impost it suffers as a result of the tariffs protecting Australia's manufacturing industries. In the May economic statement the Government has introduced some major changes to its micro-economic policies and, in particular, to the tariff system. The purpose of these changes is to make industries more efficient, by significantly reducing protective tariffs, and exposing the industries to increased competition. The tariff reductions announced in the economic statement will significantly reduce assistance for manufacturing industries, and this will assist farmers both directly and indirectly. Although an estimate of the size of the benefit to the agricultural sector depends on the assumptions used, the increased returns which will result from the reduced assistance to manufacturing are likely to be at least $350 million per annum. This is a most significant gain for the agricultural sector which greatly outweighs the impact of removing the fertiliser subsidies. For the reasons which I have previously referred to, the Government believes that it is now an appropriate time to terminate the fertiliser subsidies. The subsidies are a poor means of providing rural assistance, and invite criticism from the EEC or U.S. that Australian agriculture also benefits from subsidies. The Government has taken the initiative and significantly reduced tariff levels, which will provide important benefits for farmers. In return, the Government believes that it is appropriate for the primary sector to forgo the rather questionable benefits associated with this subsidy. Accordingly, the consumption subsidies on phosphatic and nitrogenous fertilisers will not be available after 30 June 1988. Fertiliser produced and sold for use in Australia as a fertiliser, or used or sold for use in the production of a fertiliser mixture, on or before 30 June 1988 will be eligible for the consumption subsidies. I would stress that to be eligible for the subsidy the fertiliser must be sold or used for the purposes stipulated in the Fertiliser Subsidy Act, by 30 June 1988. Manufacturers will continue to have twelve months from the date on which the end-use condition is satisfied to lodge their claim for the subsidy. Financial Impact Statement Withdrawal of the subsidies is expected to result in savings of $37m in 1988-89 and $13m in 1989-90. I commend the Bill to the Senate. Debate (on motion by Senator Lewis) adjourned. Bill received from the House of Representatives. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That the Bill may proceed without formalities and be now read a first time. Bill read a first time. Senator BOLKUS(South Australia-Minister for Consumer Affairs)(4.24) —I move: That the Bill be now read a second time. I seek leave to have the second reading speech incorporated in Hansard. Leave granted. The speech read as follows- The Customs Tariff (Rate Alteration) Bill 1988 which is now before the Senate contains alterations to rates of duty imposed by the Customs Tariff Act 1987. The Bill introduces new customs tariffs resulting from the package of microeconomic reform measures announced this evening. The Bill removes the two per cent revenue duty introduced in July 1979 and implements the first stage of general tariff reductions. In the main, general tariff rates presently in excess of fifteen per cent are to be reduced to fifteen per cent within four years from the first of July 1988. General tariff rates presently in excess of ten per cent but not greater than fifteen per cent are to be reduced to ten per cent within the same period. The annual reductions will be made in percentage point steps or multiples thereof. Roundings to facilitate this will be made on the implementation of the first reduction. Proportional reductions will be made to those duty rates not expressed in ad valorem terms. These changes will not affect tariff arrangements in the passenger motor vehicle industry, where the Government has recently announced substantially reduced protection. Textiles, clothing and footwear industries are also the subject of separate arrangements which the Government has announced tonight. Nor will the changes apply in the chemicals and plastics industries where tariffs are already phasing to fifteen per cent or less. Changes now would recreate anomalies corrected by the Government in its recent decision on assistance for these industries. The decision also will not affect other rates which are currently phasing to fifteen per cent or less. Those rates in the communications industry, which are currently phasing to twenty per cent will now reach fifteen per cent over the four year period. Existing tariff preference arrangements will remain unchanged provided that this does not prevent the general rate reductions to which I have referred. Included in this Bill are the customs tariff changes necessary to meet the Government's initiatives regarding primary product prices announced by the Minister for Primary Industries and Energy tonight. The Government's intention is that primary product prices subject to Commonwealth administered pricing arrangements should be phased down to international levels. This initiative is aimed at improving efficiency in the industries concerned and should lead to significant reductions in consumer prices for a number of commodities. As a first step, the Government has decided to phase down protection to a number of primary industries in line with general tariff reductions so that tariffs reach a level of fifteen per cent by mid-1992. The industries affected by these changes include sugar, tobacco, dried vine fruits, citrus and wine. At the expiry of the present Commonwealth-State sugar agreement on the thirtieth of June 1989 the embargo on the importation of sugar will be replaced by customs tariffs of twenty-five per cent on refined sugar and thirty-five per cent on raw sugar. These rates will be phased down to fifteen per cent from the first of July 1992. The Commonwealth has decided to end its involvement in administered pricing arrangements for domestic sugar sales. The present non-concessional tariff on tobacco imports will be replaced by an ad valorem tariff of twenty-five per cent phasing down to fifteen per cent from the first of July 1992. The concessional rate of duty provided as a component of the tobacco local content plan will be withdrawn from the first of July 1993. In conjunction with other elements of the microeconomic reform package announced tonight, these changes are a further logical step in the Government's science, industry and technology policy strategy. They will assist the growth of world class industrial activities within Australia by providing a predictable and supportive environment for industry, and by encouraging the development of competitive attitudes and cultures. Financial Impact Revenue implications are difficult to isolate accurately. However, it is anticipated that the tariff cuts covered by this Bill, tariffs which are already phasing, the changes to the passenger motor vehicle plan and the abolition of the two per cent revenue duty will result in revenue decreases of $460 million in 1988-89 increasing to $900 million in 1992-93. Details of the amendments contained in this Bill have been included in an explanatory memorandum which has been circulated for the information of honourable senators. I commend the Bill. Senator LEWIS(Victoria)(4.25) —I take this opportunity to point out that the Government has now introduced into the Senate 10 Bills in eight packages. These Bills arise from the so-called May economic statement introduced in the House of Representatives last Wednesday night by the Treasurer (Mr Keating). I draw the Senate's attention to the fact that the Senate is due to rise for the winter recess this Thursday evening at 10.30 p.m. The Government has listed for debate the referenda proposals, to one of which we have been given notice today of a very substantial and complex amendment which will create great difficulty to the people in the Senate chamber, let alone the Government, understanding what the proposal is all about. Senator Michael Baume —Does the Government? Senator LEWIS —My colleague Senator Michael Baume asks whether the Government knows what it is all about. I doubt very much whether Government backbenchers know what it is all about. Coalition senators have had a substantial briefing from officers from the Attorney-General's Department who tried to explain it to them. I have had great difficulty in grasping the nature of the amendment. Yet the people of Australia will be expected to vote on this proposal which the Government intends to get through before the Senate rises on Thursday evening. In addition, the Senate is also still considering the question of Supply, the Government's money measures. At this stage the coalition parties are not intending to block Supply in order to force an election but are rather hoping that the Government will get its money Bills through before the Senate rises on Thursday evening. The Government has a number of measures which the Manager of Government Business in the Senate, Senator Gareth Evans, tells us must be put through before Thursday night because the Government will be deprived of revenue if these Bills are not through. We have now been provided with 10 Bills in eight packages. One can see that the coalition parties in opposition have assisted the Government to get through the first readings of those Bills in a few minutes so that the Bills are now listed for debate in the Senate. I draw the Senate's attention to these matters in order to point out the impossibility of fulfilling the task which the Government is imposing upon us. It is ridiculous that the Government seems to think that the Senate will be able to debate these matters with the concern and consideration that they need. We have most important referenda proposals, questions of Supply, and committee debates coming up with regard to departmental expenditures, all of which need close and detailed examination. Now this May economic statement legislation has to be debated, and it all has to be put through by Thursday. It is really an impossible situation for the Senate to be in. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. Motion (by Senator Bolkus) agreed to: That Government Business, Order of the Day No. 1 (Call of the Senate) be postponed till after consideration of Government Business Orders of the Day No. 2 (Constitution Alteration (Parliamentary Terms) 1988) No. 3 (Constitution Alteration (Fair Elections) 1988), No. 4 (Constitution Alteration (Local Government) 1988) and No. 5 (Constitution Alteration (Rights and Freedoms) 1988). Consideration resumed from 20 May. GROUP E Department of Administrative Services Proposed expenditure, $13,591,000 Senator PARER(Queensland)(4.29) —The purpose of my rising is to discuss a particular contract for the new Parliament House. The new Parliament House itself is a magnificent structure, but the management of its construction leaves much to be desired. I would just as soon not be standing here today talking about this, but it has been brought about by the fact that at the Estimates hearings, both on this and previous occasions, we have not received satisfactory replies to the questions asked. In fact, getting information could almost be equated to the drawing of teeth without an anaesthetic. For the information of honourable senators, the granite to curved walls contract involved sawing, detailing and erecting granite panels to form a granite facade on the east and west curved walls of the new Parliament House. In 1983 this contract was awarded to a company called Ferrobeton Pty Ltd, which subsequently changed its name to Granites of Australia Pty Ltd. The first point I want to address is the waste from the colour control rejection. The granite to curved wall contract is mentioned in the Auditor-General's Efficiency Audit Report on the Parliament House Construction Authority. On page 55 of the report the Auditor-General found that the Authority did not address problems early enough, which led to the rejection of granite slabs because of blemished colour and appearance. Following that report and some publicity given to this matter, I was approached by representatives of the company involved, and my own investigations bore out the Auditor-General's conclusion. However, a point of great concern was that the quantity wasted was far greater than the Auditor-General thought, as is shown by the Auditor-General's report. According to the Auditor-General, the revised criteria required an additional 700 square metres of granite to be sawn to replace the rejected slabs. This is absolutely incorrect. When I raised this matter during the last Estimates Committee hearing it was agreed that the figure was maybe in excess of 15,000 square metres. The original contract was for 22,000 square metres, so we now have a rejection of in excess of 7,000 square metres. When I drew this anomaly to the attention of the Acting Auditor-General, he agreed that the figure was not correct, but he also noted in his letter to me that the Authority did not challenge this figure in three successive audit documents or in its published response, hence my remarks earlier that getting proper information from the Construction Authority leaves a lot to be desired. The rejection rate of such large quantities of stone, 7,000 square metres for instance, is equal to one year's production for the contractor. It could have been avoided if the contractor's warnings that the colour of the stone was changing had been heeded. The contractor alerted the Authority to inconsistencies in the colour of the granites months before colour control was eventually introduced. In fact, seven months before colour control commenced, the contractor had written to the Construction Manager stating that it was: unable to continue any further surface preparation on the granite panels as we are still awaiting a selection criteria to be finalised. This does not tally with the Authority's version that steps were taken as soon as the problem became apparent. This is but one incident where the Authority failed to take timely action to avoid waste of taxpayers' money. For instance, in December 1984 the quarry contractor began supplying Ferrobeton with a new source of granite, called face 6, which proved to have an unacceptably high rejection rate of 35 per cent. The Construction Manager was notified immediately that a new source of granite should be found, but this was not done until early 1986, when face 8 granite was introduced with a 3.8 per cent rejection rate, compared to the previous 35 per cent. The contractor calculated that 1,000 square metres of excessive waste resulted from having to process this face 6 for more than 12 months at a cost of over $110,000, and the Authority agreed during the Estimates meeting that this was one factor which led to need for an additional 7,000 square metres of granite. I was informed by the Authority that it had been considering a new source of granite to replace face 6 in March 1985. However, my information is that no action to develop a new quarry was taken until Tom Skeers, the foreman of the quarry contractor, located and arranged for leasing of a new source of granite in his own name in February-March, 1986. It was Tom Skeers's quarry which the Concrete-Holland Joint Venture spent approximately a quarter of a million dollars developing to supply the face 8 granite which eventually replaced the high rejection rate face 6. Further wastage of granite occurred when the quarry contractor began supplying Ferrobeton with oversized blocks. The dimensions of the blocks being supplied exceeded the quarry schedule size of 2.1 by 1.5 by 1 metre. The construction manager did not make the quarry contractor reduce the size of the blocks despite requests from the contractor, and the information in the monthly progress reports which detailed the amount of oversaw that these oversized blocks were generating. Ferrobeton estimates that some 4,000 square metres of granite was totally wasted as a result of these oversized blocks. The additional quantity of granite used on this contract has blown out, as I said earlier, to more than 15,500 square metres according to the Authority. This is nearly 70 per cent again of the original quantity of granite specified for this contract of 21,000 square metres. The Authority tells me that this is not a problem as the granite rejected from the curved walls would be cut into pavers and used to landscape the courtyards around the building. Because of the shortage of time I will skip some of the remarks that were made in the Estimates Committee meeting and come to a series of questions. During the Estimates Committee meeting, Mr O'Connell told me that `all the sawn granite will be used in the landscaping', while Mr Fowler said of the reject granite that `all the granite has been used in the landscaping. Indeed, the Authority will have to do further excavation in order to complete the last part of landscaping, which is the formal gardens'. The first point I make about that is that while this is a very convenient way to get rid of the mistakes, it does not excuse the Authority or its representatives for failing to address problems in a timely manner, which could have avoided the generation of so much waste. Secondly, I challenge the Authority's assertion that all the granite was used in the landscaping. The granite offcuts from this contract were recently disposed of by public tender to Uneena Pty Ltd. The principal of that company, I understand, is Mr Chandler. I do not in any way cast any aspersions on his character, because he did notify the Authority of his interest. I think the mistake was, because of the conflict of interest, that the Authority allowed him to go ahead and put his tender in. That was morally wrong and wrong in principle-not wrong for Mr Chandler but wrong for the Authority. Mr Chandler was reported in the Melbourne Herald as saying that Uneena had been used as a tender vehicle to assist a company called Aussie Offcuts, which wanted the wasted granite to make tourist souvenirs-all that wasted granite for tourist souvenirs! I have with me an advertisement from last Saturday week's Canberra Times placed by Aussie Offcuts, this same company, which reads: `For Sale, Granite offcuts and slabs (some polished) at bargain prices!'. The advert goes on to say that it is suitable for paving, coffee tables, barbecue tables, garden seats, kitchen bench inserts, mantelpieces, et cetera-`Have your own piece of genuine Parliament House granite. Visit our site and select your own'. Mr O'Connell described the granite that was disposed of by public tender as `off-cuts-small pieces of rough stone arising from the cutting and detailing'. This was the response we got in the Estimates Committee meeting-small pieces of rough stone arising from the cutting and detailing-and it bears no relationship to the advertisement in the Canberra Times. Aussie Offcuts is advertising polished slabs large enough to make things like pavers and tables and of sufficiently good quality to sell commercially. This is inconsistent with the information supplied by the Authority and it needs a response, especially as the Authority stated during the hearing that further granite will need to be excavated to complete the landscaping. Yet we have seen it advertised and sold for a different purpose. With regard to the quantity of granite that has been used in the landscaping, I want to ask a series of questions of the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray), which I would like to be taken on notice if they cannot be answered now. What quantity of extra carmina granite was used for the curved walls contract and could I have a breakdown of who supplied it? How has this extra granite been used? What is the total area of courtyards paved with granite? What is the area of the new Parliament House courtyards landscaped with carmina granite panels sawn by Ferrobeton? What quantity of carmina granite was supplied by other stone contractors for the landscaping contract? How much additional granite is required to be excavated to complete landscaping the formal gardens? In relation to the previous comment about the successful tenderer for the so-called offcuts, I also ask the Authority: How many other tenders were submitted? What was the highest price offered by other tenderers? Were the tender details made known to the eventual successful tenderer? I also take issue with the Authority's assertion that the reject stone was an integral part of the original plan. Why was it all honed before being accepted or rejected for the curved wall? Honed granite is unsuitable for use as courtyard pavers because it it too slippery when wet. The reject granite used for pavers would have had to be grit-blasted to remove the smooth honed finish. Indeed, when Ferrobeton was asked to quote on processing landscape panels in 1985, this included grit-blasting the granite to give it a non-slip surface. If the use of waste for pavers was an integral part of the plan, as the Authority claims, this is a gross waste and inefficiency. As my time has almost expired, I will not be able to go into the balance of the comments I wanted to make about ex-gratia payments, except to say that the answer given to me by the Authority does not coincide with the letters I have in my possession which were provided to me by the contractor. That deserves a further explanation. It seems that in the answer given to the Estimates Committee, one paragraph was quoted from the response by the Concrete-Holland Joint Venture, but it was taken out of context. I refer the officers to a letter dated 18 July 1984. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(4.43) —I will also speak about the Parliament House Construction Authority. My intervention will perhaps give Senator Parer an opportunity to continue, if he wishes to do so. I raise a couple of matters which are of some concern. At the hearing of Senate Estimates Committee E, I asked the Parliament House Construction Authority what was the inflation element involved in the latest increase in the total cost of the project. I thought it was to $1,050m, but it could have been to $1,070m. I have forgotten because it keeps going up so much. The response was that the escalation content in the latest quarter was $4.68m. That means that the overall increase, as a percentage of the unexpended amount on the building, was 3.57 per cent in one quarter. Obviously, if one extrapolates that figure-3.57 per cent for one quarter-one gets an annual rate of inflation of about 14 per cent. The Parliament House Construction Authority, in its response, cautioned against extrapolating this to cover four quarters since the results would not take into account either changes in actual expenditure or additional costs. All I have to say to the Parliament House Construction Authority is that that seems to muddy the water. The simple reality is that in the latest quarter for which we have received information there was an inflation rate, in terms of building costs on this project, of 14 per cent-that is, building and fitting out costs because, as I understand it, the bulk of the building had been completed and what we are looking at, basically, is fitting out costs. I believe that the Committee and the people of Australia have a right to know why there should be a 14 per cent increase in fitting out costs in a period in which, as I understand it, the inflation rate was about 6 per cent. It seems to me that all through this project we have had continual examples of the cost escalation of this building being something like double the inflation rate. There has to be a simple reason. In the past, one reason given was that building costs have risen, according to an index in Canberra, by far more than the inflation rate. I wonder to what extent the very existence of the Parliament House construction has been an element in that index. In other words, it is a self-fulfilling cost rise; because Parliament House is increasing its costs at such a fast rate, the Canberra building index is increasing at such a fast rate and, therefore, the Parliament House construction cost increases at a faster rate than that of inflation. There may be a better explanation; I would like to hear it. I certainly believe that the Parliament House Construction Authority owes us an explanation as to why there should be such a continually large increase in the inflationary costs of building which is so much higher than the inflation rate with which the rest of the community manages to cope. That is particularly so with fitting out, because I would have imagined that, to the extent that so many things, such as carpets, seem to have been imported in this Australian Parliament House, we would have seen some diminution in cost as the Australian dollar has appreciated in recent times. Maybe there is another explanation which is beyond me, but we are owed an explanation and we do not have one. Another matter which is of concern to me, and which I believe the Committee should note, is the cost to the project of the deregistration of the Builders Labourers Federation (BLF). Of course, the cost to the project of the BLF runs into multimillions of dollars. To a large extent, the Parliament House Construction Authority should be congratulated for the manner in which it endeavoured to handle the Builders Labourers Federation, which set out on a deliberate course of disruption on that project. The BLF believed that it had the Government over a barrel and this Government was quite happy to be there because it was determined to finish the project in time for the bicentennial celebrations-almost at any cost. Fortunately, the Parliament House Construction Authority did seek to stand up to the BLF to a considerable degree. Although I have been very critical of the Authority in many areas, I think it is only right to note that it did seek to resist the more outrageous demands of the BLF. However, that does not diminish in any sense my strong criticism of the sweetheart deals that were done on that site with other building unions. I believe that those deals have been disastrous, in a cost sense, and have led the pack around Australia in the way in which conditions have been allowed to increase far beyond those allowed for other Australian citizens. The people of Australia should recognise that it now looks as if the total estimated cost of settlements to contractors by way of compensation arising out of the deregistration of the BLF will reach three-quarters of a million dollars. We have to recognise what sorts of costs the disgraceful behaviour of the BLF have imposed on many buildings throughout Australia and, in fact, the costs will be faced by many Australians. In the construction of the new Parliament House the disruption involving deregistration of the BLF alone, by the time the final settlements have been reached, will have involved a total of $750,000. All Australians can thank the BLF and Mr Gallagher for adding $750,000, for that one item, to the cost of the new Parliament House project, apart from the multimillions of dollars that have been added by other industrial disruptions these people have caused. The cost of this industrial disruption has resulted despite the fact that on this project a practice has been followed which Senator Ray has conceded in this place is not sound. That practice is the Commonwealth, the people of Australia, paying the wages of union organisers on site, in an attempt, if you like, to buy silence, to buy cooperation, to buy the unions on the site so that they would not indulge in irresponsible behaviour. Parliament House Construction Authority representatives say that has worked. In other words, if this arrangement had not existed the level of industrial disputation would have been even worse. That may be so. They are experts in this area. I am not, and I accept what they say. All I know is that, despite the existence of that agreement, we have had massive levels of industrial unrest which are not due to national disputes but which relate to individual and specific disputes, and not only as a result of the BLF. The BLF was party to the 1984 agreement, as I understand it. Despite those arrangements there has been a substantial level of industrial unrest. Senator Walters —How much did it cost? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I asked that question during the Senate Estimates Committee hearing. The cost to the new Parliament House project of full time union delegates in 1987-88, the current financial year, is estimated to be $353,000. Eight union delegates are to be paid for by the people of Australia rather than by the unions themselves. The Parliament House Construction Authority says that, with up to 500 employers and 2,300 employees engaged on site, delegates have made an important and generally responsible contribution towards the avoidance of disputes. That may be so, but the people of Australia are entitled to be aware of the fact that they have been paying, since 1984-85-for four years-about $350,000 a year, a total of $1.2m or so. We have further examples of the need for an added sense of responsibility within the union movement when it comes to arrangements and deals it is not prepared to stick to. The 1984 site agreement was not only generous; it was monumentally generous. The escalation figures that I referred to earlier, the huge increases in costs, at more than double the rate of inflation, relate to the fact that deals were done on the site with the union movement, particularly the 1984 site agreement, which cost the people of Australia multimillions of dollars and which involved obligations by the unions which were not totally delivered. In conclusion, I mention my concern about the opening of the new Parliament House, which was not in the hands of this Parliament but in the hands of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. As I understand it, this Parliament had not taken over the running of the new construction. I asked Senator Button last week whether the Government would make available as soon as possible the names of the 500 or so people who, I understand, were on the personal list of those invited by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) to attend the opening of the new Parliament House, and indicate in which hall they were seated. Senator Reid —Five what? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I understand that there were several hundred people-I was told 500-on that list. But as no-one has bothered to respond to this question yet, I cannot verify it. Certainly, a large section of the main hall was occupied by invited guests of the Prime Minister, rather than parliamentarians or former parliamentarians. I also asked Senator Button to make available the list of distinguished former parliamentarians who were unable to be accommodated in the main hall and who were obliged to listen to the ceremony by loudspeaker in the external hall, where they saw nothing of the proceedings and where they did not participate in the ceremony, including former distinguished parliamentarians who participated in the decision, by the Cabinet of the Fraser Government, to build the new Parliament House. They made the decision, but they did not participate in the ceremony in the main hall. But never mind; people such as Mr Fred Daley and Mr Mick Young were obviously more equal than others. They are former parliamentarians, too, but they were in the main hall. I understand that Mr Stephen Loosley was in the main hall, as well. I do not know what his contribution has been to the new Parliament House. Senator Walters —How many personal invitations did the Prime Minister have? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —That is the question. I understand it was about 500 or so. All I know is that there was a large bank of seats on the left hand side of the front, which was full of the Prime Minister's personal guests, with the result that members of this chamber and of the House of Representatives were seated at the very back of the hall while the Prime Minister's mates occupied the front and certainly the left hand side. It is important for this chamber's dignity that we be given the answer to this question, which is now over a week old. It would be appropriate for the Government to stop trying to hide this kind of information. It should be readily available. The list is there. Why did we not get an answer straight away? I was given an undertaking that we would get an answer. It would be both courteous and proper if it were given. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator BISHOP(New South Wales)(4.58) —Senator Michael Baume has properly raised questions of how the opening of the new Parliament House was conducted which, in turn-- Senator Robert Ray —Madam Chair, I raise a point of order. This matter is not a matter for the Department of Administrative Services. I let Senator Baume run with it for a while. We could have a long debate on it. Estimates Committee A dealt with this matter. I have already sent an officer away to try to find out how long the answer will be, out of courtesy. However, I am not willing to have a long debate on the question when it is not relevant to this division. If it were relevant I would be happy to have a debate on it. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —This matter relates to the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. Senator Bishop, do you have any other remarks that relate to the Department of Administrative Services? Senator BISHOP —Perhaps Senator Ray was pre-emptive in his point of order. I meant to move on to how other decisions have been taken with regard to the new Parliament House. It has come to my attention today that a brochure is being handed out at the new Parliament House entitled `Australia's New Parliament House'. It is a glossy, attractive brochure with many nice designs. Printed on the side are the words, `This brochure is produced for the Parliament House Construction Authority'. It says that the drawings were done by the architects to the Construction Authority, namely, Mitchell, Giurgola and Thorp. I table the brochure. The drawing of the House of Representatives chamber shows none other than the traditional Speaker's chair. Superimposed on the drawing of the new chamber is the chair which it was said the architects did not want in the new chamber. We were then told that it could not be fitted through the door of the existing House of Representatives chamber to be carried up the hill. We then heard that the Labor Party caucused on this matter and determined that the chair would not be moved. The reason that I raise this matter is that I am concerned that at every avenue this Government has attempted to break with tradition in every possible way that it can. The vice-regal chair in this chamber will not be moved; the President's chair will not be moved. The matter which has been highly contentious and has been raised by many members of the public is the fact that the Speaker's chair will not be taken to the new Parliament House; yet the drawings by the architects depict the Speaker's chair, looking very fine in the new chamber in the new Parliament House. We have seen the attempt by the Labor Party to break with tradition by causing the new Senate chamber not to be decorated in the rich ruby red that we have here, but in some shade of crushed strawberry. Indeed, the colour of the new House of Representatives chamber is not the rich emerald green that is traditional, but a nice shade of pale peppermint that would look very fine with a pale apricot leather couch in any House and Garden magazine that one might care to pick up. It is not the sort of decor that one uses when building for tradition, for a minimum of the next 200 years. We have debated here today a motion of censure of the Government regarding the rushing through of the referendum Bills, which have not been carefully thought out and which are now to be subject to amendment. The real intent of those referendum bulls is to downgrade and finally phase out the Senate as an effective House of review. The hidden second agenda that this Government has is to try at every turn to breach and break with every tradition that we find important. I would be most interested to hear a reply from the Government as to why it pretended that it was the architect's decision that the Speaker's chair ought not be moved. We were then told that it would not fit through the door of the existing chamber without an enormous amount of money being spent. What is to happen to it, in any event? Some people might say that the matter is not of great moment; yet it runs to the very heart of the integrity and truthfulness of the Government. Why was there so much subterfuge to keep the chair out of the new House? Why is there so much subterfuge that the questions that are being posed in the referendum are soft, weak, attractive questions that do not go to the heart of the Bills? What does this Government really want Australia to have as its bicentennial birthday present? Is it really concerned to see a change to the extent that we would not have new Prime Minister Paul Keating, but President Keating? Is this the real agenda that is being set? Although these questions may seem peripheral-- Senator Robert Ray —Madam Temporary Chairman, I raise a point of order. I have let Senator Bishop raise the end of the world and the apocalypse during the consideration of the Estimates, but there is nothing in the appropriations that indicates that the apocalypse is coming. You should call her to order. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator BJELKE-PETERSEN) —Senator Bishop, would you confine your remarks to the departmental votes? Senator BISHOP —I conclude by saying that Senator Michael Baume has outlined on many an occasion the exorbitant waste of money that has arisen out of the practices that have been engaged in in the construction of that building. When we think of the chambers in which we are to serve, we can think of the fact that there is no wood panelling, allegedly because of cost cutting. Perhaps we should look at the opulence of the swimming pool, which would satisfy both Caligula and his horse, to realise where the priorities of this Government lie. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.05) —We have just heard a little speech from Senator Bishop about the traditions of this place. She has just breached one of the longest standing traditions of this place-that we do not discuss personal House of Representatives matters, that we do not discuss House of Representatives estimates. Her comments concerned that area. In order to make a classic conservative statement, Senator Bishop breached one of the great conservative traditions of this place. One element that she raised is relevant to these estimates-that is, the drawing that was put out by the Parliament House Construction Authority (PHCA). It was printed in 1982. I suppose Senator Bishop would argue that, once the House of Representatives had made its decision as to the future of the Speaker's chair, we should have pulped all of those documents and reprinted them. Senator Michael Baume would then have attacked me for a waste of expenditure. It is quite clear that I cannot win by either a Punch or a Judy in this case, so I will move on to discuss other matters. Let me refer first to Senator Michael Baume's remarks. His speech, apart from the last two or three minutes, exemplified how Committee of the Whole debates on Estimates should proceed. He made political comments about the answers he has received, as cogently as he could, without referring another list of questions which, clearly, I could not answer in depth. That is the way in which the Committee of the Whole is supposed to deal with Estimates. That is the way in which Senator Michael Baume proceeded. He raised matters in the area of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet. The maximum number of guests, apparently-I qualify this because I have sought some information quickly-that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) was allowed was 60 couples, not 500 people. A response to Senator Baume's request is with the Prime Minister's office. Therefore, I will not add to it. I reject, though, some of the implications made by Senator Baume. He referred to Mr Loosley. I do not know who invited Mr Loosley. He could have been a guest of a member of parliament, for all Senator Baume and I know. To throw in his name gratuitously-- Senator Michael Baume —Not in the main hall. Senator ROBERT RAY —Yes. He could have been a guest of any of a variety of people. Inviting people to the opening of a new Parliament House is a no-win position. Ideally, 20,000 or 30,000 people would have liked to be present in the main hall. I made the comment openly, after leaving the ceremony, that I thought that the opening was both good and bad. The good part about it was the basic informality that allowed people to wander through the chambers and to take photos. People were not supposed to take photos during the ceremony, but one of our distinguished past Prime Ministers, unfortunately, set a bad example. We would have to let that pass. The highlight was that there was not an enormous amount of pomp, people felt relaxed and enjoyed the ceremony, and there were not enormously long speeches. I thought the musical presentation was marvellous. A lot of aspects were good. The point I did not like was the fact that guests in the Members Hall did not have access to direct television coverage. I know that there were technical reasons for that. I still think that in retrospect it was a major mistake. Two of my guests were in the Members Hall. I know that they grumbled because all that they could hear was the radio broadcast. Five minutes later, John Elliott sat down in the row in front of them and made their day. They enjoyed watching his discomfort during the rest of the ceremony. However, the way that that was organised was not good enough. In retrospect the Prime Minister's Department and others would agree that that was the least satisfactory part of the opening- Senator Walters —What did Mick Young think of it? Senator ROBERT RAY —I know that Senator Walters thinks I am a person with enormously wide knowledge, an all-knowing person. Funnily enough, I did not rush from the opening to ring Mick Young and say, `Mick, what did you think of the opening?'. It is almost a matter for resignation that I did not do so. I humbly apologise for not ringing Mick Young, but I am certain that Senator Walters can whenever she likes. A more conclusive answer to Senator Baume's question will be provided. Senator Baume says that it should have been provided immediately. The Prime Minister has some priorities-the May statement and many other matters. He may not have regarded his most important priority that week to rush that answer through. If he did not regard it as such, I happen to agree with him. I will move on to some of the other points that were made. Senator Baume asked why the fit-out cost-not the actual building cost-was so high. I have been informed that one of the major factors in that is the escalating cost of electronics which made up the major part of that fit-out at the time. I cannot quantify that for Senator Baume. If I can get a further answer, I will have it forwarded to him. With an appreciating dollar certainly some of the costs of imported things would drop, but most of them were written out, quite properly, in the currency at the time the contract was entered into. They are not adjusted for exchange rates; it is not normal commercial practice. He also made a political point about the Builders Labourers Federation and its cost to the Australian taxpayer. I think that sums it up. Most of the other points went to the previous answers. Senator Parer asked for the cost of tenderers. I cannot answer that directly because it is commercial in confidence, but I can give him percentage figures that will indicate to him what the costs were. For a start, there were three tenderers in all. The winning tenderer was 800 per cent higher than No. 2 tenderer and 2,500 per cent higher than the other tenderer. In other words, the winning tenderer paid eight times as much as the second tenderer and 20 times as much as the third for that particular project. He asked: what about the tenderer having some connection with the PHCA or the project? There was actually no requirement on the person, either before or after he entered the tender, to notify the Authority of his intention to tender but he did notify it. The honourable senator referred to wastage. I think he has heard many explanations as to why the wastage was there. He has heard the explanation as to why it was factored in and the fact that, apart from the offcuts, the rest of the material was used in works around landscaping, et cetera. If it had not been used there, we would have had to get more material in for the landscaping. He said that many questions were unanswered and said that getting answers to them was harder than extracting teeth without an anaesthetic. We attempted to address most of the questions in the last Estimates committee meeting and I think all unanswered questions have subsequently been answered. They may be not to the honourable senator's satisfaction, but we have attempted to answer them. He detailed some very specific questions that I simply cannot assist him with at this stage. They have been taken on notice and I will ask for them to be processed as quickly as possible. That, I think, covers the major points raised by Senator Michael Baume, Senator Parer and Senator Bishop. Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(5.13) —In the Estimates Committee hearing for the Department of Administrative Services on 21 April I raised a number of questions relating to the Government's policy about the payment of Commonwealth accounts and the fact that the Government had embarked upon a new policy of now taking a minimum of 30 days to pay accounts. This matter was raised by a constituent of mine in the Northern Territory who is a significant contractor with the Department of Administrative Services. I will take the time of the Senate to read a letter from a director of Northern Territory Property Services Group to the Commonwealth Ombudsman regarding the payment of Commonwealth accounts. The letter reads: I am forced to bitterly complain re the recent decision handed down by somebody in Canberra re the payment of Commonwealth accounts for stores and services. This company carries out various cleaning works for Administrative Services in Darwin, and in particular the R.A.A.F. Base, Darwin. It has been clearly spelt out to us that even if invoices are submitted promptly at the end of each month and certified for payment, they will not be paid by Accounts Payable Section until the 30 days from date of invoice, has passed. In short, they deliberately sit in the basket for 30 days. This is a disgusting situation in a country that is supposed to be promoting free enterprise. To summarize the whole situation, the Commonwealth Government is saying to private enterprise: `We are going to use you money for another 30 days, you poor fools-like it or lump it'. If something is not done re same, then I will go to the media for action. This is totally unacceptable. The letter is signed by Mrs Desley Muir, a director of Northern Territory Property Services Group. I raised the issues raised by Mrs Muir with officers of the Department on 21 April. A senior officer of the Department replied: Some new rules have been issued by the Department of Finance following a recent Government decision about changes to the process of paying accounts. In summary, those rules are: that payments shall be made on the due date as specified in the invoice. In other words, if the account specifies a due date of seven days, it will be paid on the seventh day. If it specifies a due date of 14 days, it will be paid on the fourteenth day. If no due date is specified, the normal period of 30 days will apply, in which case the account will be paid on the thirtieth day, not before. Further on the officer said that it did not apply just to this Department, of course, and that the Commonwealth-wide change had been made by the Government. So the Government has determined to bring in a new policy-that it will not pay for 30 days accounts that appear before it with no specified date on them. This is not normal in normal commercial enterprises. In any business situation if an account is in order and it passes for payment, one expects it to be paid as soon as is conveniently possible. In a subsequent answer that has been circulated from the Estimates Committee my attention was drawn to the `Finance Implementation Circular No. 1' of 4 June 1987 and the amended `Finance Directions, Section 25'. The detailed document goes into much more detail about how these instructions require that accounts be paid on a due date. In an answer given to the Estimates Committee on 21 April it was stated: The due date would be 28 days (allowing 2 extra days for the cheque to be received within the 30 days), unless alternative terms, usually involving discounts- to the Commonwealth, of course- are arranged with suppliers. So blackmail is also being pushed onto an organisation-unless it can introduce a form of discounting of its pricing, the account will not be paid for at least 28 days. The instructions to officers also include some very interesting statements. One instruction states that the invoice to be entered on each claim that does not contractually specify payment earlier than 30 days is to be identified. Further in that circular there is an instruction which states: You should immediately change the focus of your entire accounts processing procedures to emphasise the due date. Accounts should be batched on that basis from 1 July 1987. Current staff should be trained to recognise that each claim received must bear the due date for payment and every effort should be made in the processing cycle of the claim to meet that due date. That implies that the due date for payment is 28 or 30 days hence from the date of the invoice, if it comes into the Commonwealth. Further in that Finance circular is the statement: From 1 July 1987 departments should sort, process and batch according to due date while keeping cash management consideration in mind- I stress this point- by not paying too early particularly for large value payments eg over $1,000. I think it is worth repeating that this is the decision of the Government that is flowing through to the way in which it will process and deal with people such as cleaning contractors in the way in which it does. Again, the quote states: Departments should sort, process and batch according to due date while keeping cash management consideration in mind by not paying too early particularly for large value payments eg over $1,000. In the revised section 25 of the Finance Directions, this is again reinforced in more formal and legalistic terms, including an instruction to the effect that all purchase orders issued must clearly indicate a number of things such as addresses and contact names and everything else, but including: (c) the terms of payment-30 days from acceptance of goods or services and the receipt of a correctly rendered invoice unless other terms are agreed to with the supplier; Here is a situation where the Commonwealth Government has made a very deliberate decision to pick up credit. This practice affects many people such as cleaning contractors and others who give services and would expect to have accounts processed in a much more normal way. During the next Estimates committee meetings I am going to pursue the implication for the various voluntary and community organisations which receive grants and subsidies from government. Does it mean that they will also be placed on this deferred payment schedule? What is the subsequent cost to groups like Mrs Muir's cleaning service or the various voluntary and community organisations which will now suffer a subsequent loss of interest income? I think this is an appalling decision by government. It is one which certainly needs to be seriously addressed and reviewed. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.21) —The Government decision that Senator Tambling referred to resulted from the Block review of accounting processes and was included in the implementation circular No. 1 of the Department of Finance. It is general Government policy and I suggest the honourable senator pursue it with the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) at the next meeting of the Estimates Committee. As the honourable senator has indicated, the matter he raised covers all areas of government, not just those dealt with by the Department of Administrative Services, which has been responding to a direction from the Department of Finance. I was interested to hear the honourable senator say that the matter he raised was `a great attack against private enterprise'. This is a normal private enterprise condition. Businesses very rarely pay immediately for any demand made on them. People who find that onerous normally indicate on their dockets that the account should be paid within seven days. But it would not be appropriate to pursue this matter which, as I say, applies generally to Government departments. I assume that the honourable senator indicated rather than threatened that he would take this matter up again. I suggest that he take it up with the appropriate Estimates committee that deals with the Department of Finance. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(5.22) —I wish to refer to an answer given to Estimates Committee E by the Department of Defence which referred to properties that have been passed to the Department of Administrative Services for disposal. The answer was given some time after the question was asked at the Estimates Committee hearing and, consequently, I have not had an opportunity to take the matter any further until now. I recognise that it may not be possible to get answers now, but I would like to get what I can. The Department of Defence indicated in attachment B to its answers the properties that are to be disposed of by the Department of Administrative Services for the Department of Defence in 1987-88. That list included the following rifle ranges: Dorrigo, Mudgee, Young, Bathurst and the Anzac rifle range, Sydney in New South Wales; Biggenden, Pimpama, the Belmont rifle range in Brisbane, Bundaberg, Coolangatta, Dalby in Queensland; and Pontville in Tasmania. I would like to know just what is the current situation in regard to the sale of these 12 Army rifle ranges. I note that there is only one month to go before the end of the financial year. I wonder whether all of the rifle ranges have been sold. I would like to know how many have been sold and for how much money? I would also like to know whether there has been a change of heart on the part of the Government in light of the real concern around the country about the sale of these rifle ranges. A great deal of concern has been expressed to the Opposition and also, I am sure, the Government, about the loss to the country of facilities that have been used by rifle clubs and members of the defence forces to practice rifle shooting. I wonder whether in fact the sale has gone ahead, particularly in the case of the Anzac rifle range. I would like to know how much money has been received by the Government for the rifle ranges that have been sold. What has happened to the money that has been received? Has it gone back into Consolidated Revenue or is there any way in which it can be passed to the Defence Department, which once again, I think for the third Budget in a row, has been cut back. I wish to refer to a rifle range which is closer to the heart of my constituents-the range simply described as `Pontville Tas'. If this is truly the Pontville Rifle Range as we know it, I would like the Government to say what the intention is for rifle training by members of the defence forces. Pontville is really the only rifle range which is accessible to the Brighton Army Camp, where all of the reserve and main basic training is done in Tasmania. If the Department could give me the exact locality of the range at Pontville, that will help to identify whether it is the range that I assume it is. I would like to know whether the Department of Administrative Services is making other arrangements with the Department of Defence for the purchase of another rifle range to replace the one at Pontville. Senator Tambling —Perhaps they are going to lease it back. Senator NEWMAN —Perhaps that is so. Maybe we are into privatisation after all-by the back door. The list also contains a number of properties scheduled for sale which are described as married quarters. The list describes those properties as follows: `Sydney NSW, married quarter flats', `Sydney NSW, married quarters' and `Melbourne Victoria, married quarters'. Those entries are very vague. We are not given any indication of the number of houses and where they are. I would like to know all of those things as well as whether in fact they have been sold, and, if so, for how much money? Once again, I would like to know what is going to happen to the income from those sales. Will it go back into Consolidated Revenue, as I fear it must, or have special arrangements been made for it to be transferred to the Defence Housing Authority to enable substitute married quarter housing to be provided for the defence forces? It seems to me that at every turn the defence budget itself or the Defence Housing Authority budget is being short changed in terms of funds. If these bodies are giving up assets for the sake of the Government trying to fulfil its promises on assets sales, are they being given the benefits of any of this income to help them replace training facilities and married quarters, both of which we know they need badly? Finally, I refer to the item described as `Launceston Tasmania, Army Depot'. I am informed that this depot in fact is not in Launceston but in George Town. If it is in Launceston, it means that it is either the historic Patterson Barracks or it is the only working Army depot in the north-east of Tasmania, and I cannot believe that the Government is intending to sell that. It could possibly be a small depot at George Town, about an hour's drive from Launceston. If that is the case, it seems that the Department of Defence has been pretty inaccurate with its listing. I wonder whether the Department of Administrative Services knows what it is supposed to be selling? If so, has it sold the depot and for how much? If not, when does it expect a sale? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Is the Minister in a position to answer the questions now, or shall I call Senator Michael Baume? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.28) —Madam Temporary Chairman, I am in a position not to answer those questions now-as I would be in half an hour's time. Again, Senator Newman has listed a lot of detailed questions. Most of the rifle ranges were identified not early but late in the process. As the honourable senator probably knows, a matter concerning the Anzac Rifle Range is in the courts. Negotiations are firmly under way with regard to Belmont. The others were identified fairly late, so the processes are not under way. The honourable senator asked a lot of specific questions and, quite obviously, I am not in a position to respond at this stage. I will try to get answers for the honourable senator in regard to her questions on rifle ranges, defence housing and the area in Launceston-cum-George Town. Again, I cannot do it on the spot. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.29) —I now wish to raise a matter which I believe involves the scandalous waste of public money and which relates to empty properties owned by the Commonwealth. The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) was very kind to remark that I had used this debate appropriately and correctly by raising matters that had been answered-perhaps unsatisfactorily, but nonetheless answered-as a result of questions arising from Senate Estimates committees. If I have behaved properly, the Minister has also fulfilled his role, which is to obfuscate and create impossibilities for the Opposition in trying to find out what the facts are. I commend the Minister because he has done very well. We have persistently asked this Government-and I have asked the public servants who were here during Estimates committee hearings-for simple answers to simple questions. I will repeat the question I asked and the Committee can find out how simple it was: Did any property owned or rented by the Department-and I asked every Department this-remain empty or significantly underutilised during the past 12 months? The only responses I have had, with one exception, have related to renting. The departments answered about properties rented. In fact, I got a fairly unsatisfactory answer to the question of what was rented. We did end up finding out that the Government has been renting something like $6.5m-worth of property that it has not been occupying and the departments say that that figure is a decided improvement on how badly they did the year before. The Government can judge its capacity by doing less badly, apparently. The essential element concerns property owned by the departments. It is incredible that we are debating the appropriations when there have been no effective answers, apart from those from Australia Post, to a question asked properly in these committee hearings over a month ago. The purpose of this debate is to be able to deal with the questions and answers from the Estimates committee hearings. It is improper for this Government to bring on this debate before it has provided answers which it undertook to give. We are still waiting for those answers. The Minister did respond to a question asked last week by Senator Patterson by obfuscating and talking around the subject-and she even asked a supplementary question-without dealing with the question asked, which was about owned property. The Minister talked about how it would be a herculean task to find out. He said, `We may have to make a judgment as to the amount of resources we would need to devote to answering the question'. He did say that, in anticipation of the fact that he will be asked these questions at the next Senate Estimates hearing, he will have the figures prepared. The simple fact is that everything that has emerged indicates that the Government does not know what properties it owns-I underline `owns'-that are either vacant or underutilised. If that is the way that Government thinks it should conduct its business it seems to be pretty incompetent. There is a suggestion that the figure really is multimillions of dollars-worth. I object to the fact that, having had what I understand to be indications from departmental officers that they would be trying to find an answer on owned property, we are still waiting and now are having a debate without that answer. The only answer we got from the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) was that it was not feasible to compare its property utilisation this financial year with last financial year. Let us forget about the comparison; let us have the figures. Is not being able to compare the figures any excuse for not providing the figures for the current year? What figures is the Department not using now? The sort of response we got was that because the Department of Administrative Services was formed by the Administrative Arrangements Order of 1987 and is an amalgamation of elements of eight former departments, therefore it is not feasible to compare the figures. That is the typical sort of bureaucratic nonsense that this chamber should not have to put up with. It is a deliberate attempt to deceive this chamber and the people of Australia. It is a disgrace that the bureaucracy should be allowed to get away with that kind of response. The reality is that multimillions of dollars-worth of properties that the Government owns are empty. There are multimillions of dollars-worth of property in the hands of the Department of Administrative Services, ready for disposal. We know that from the answer we got from Australia Post, which complained to the Joint Committee of Public Accounts that the Department of Administrative Services was monumentally incompetent in disposing of these properties, taking an average of two years to dispose of property that had come to it for disposal. We have certainly found out from Australia Post-and I commend it-about the extraordinarily high level of massively underutilised properties. For example, a major property in Melbourne worth $55m, with several floors, has been unoccupied, I think, for five years. Senator Newman —Disgraceful. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —As Senator Newman says, it is disgraceful. I have circulated a list to people who are interested, and I am prepared to provide it to anyone else, of some of these properties that have been empty for many years-one at Box Hill for six years and one at Somerville for 18 years. So the list goes on. A property at Balranald has been empty for 8 1/2 years and part of the former post office site at St Marys has been empty for 15 years. The Sydney South post office has been empty for 13 years. It is just incredible. Australia Post says that to a large extent this is due to laxity or the delays involved in disposing of these properties through the Department of Administrative Services. The fact is that Australia Post as a statutory authority has replied; I have not yet got a response from Telecom Australia. One wonders what Telecom's figures are going to be like because, after all, the last annual report of Telecom shows that the buildings it owns at cost are valued at $1,300m. That is even more than the new Parliament House cost to build, so it must be extensive property holding. The sum of $1,300m is an increase during the year of $145m. Telecom has spent an extra $145m on property. I simply ask in this chamber the questions we could not get answered until now in Senate Estimates hearings: How much of that property is empty? How long has it been empty? What is its value? Why is it still empty? Unless the Government really is determined to hide behind this extraordinary reluctance to come clean, I can assume only that either the total figure is scandalous or it is so incompetent that it does not know the figure. Senator Tambling —What about leased property? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I have already dealt with leased property. We know that $6.5m was spent on leased property which was not occupied last year. But this is a question on owned property-a far bigger and more substantial issue. That is why Senator Ray, in his reply to Senator Patterson, chose not to answer the major element of the question on owned property. It is important that we get appropriate answers. On the question of leased property, Telecom is paying $92m in rent. That is an increase of something like $15m this year; and on top of that it has lease commitments, apart from those rental properties, of $340m, as shown in the latest consolidated accounts. That is an increase of something like $80m per year, as I understand it, from the consolidated accounts. I believe that with enormous numbers like that we are entitled to an honest answer from the Government. It is not honest, when asked about the total of owned and leased properties, to limit the answer to leased properties. I simply ask the Government to come clean. Senator Newman raised the question of defence properties. I asked the Department of Defence, which said that it could not possibly answer that question. It apparently has no idea and I am not quite certain. It did have a list of properties that it wanted to get rid of. The Department of Defence could not answer what properties were underutilised, or how many had been empty and for how long. It is a bit of an impertinence asking a department of the Commonwealth whether it is actually using the properties that the taxpayers' money has been spent in buying. What an impertinence, how dare I suggest that I should get an answer! The only answer that I got in the Senate Estimates Committee hearing was that there was a list of properties planned for disposal. The Department of Defence, in its response, stated: The practice has been that Defence property has been declared to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) for disposal. The property passes to the control of DAS. Honourable senators will notice the reply I got from DAS said that it had no property underutilised. That is interesting. Maybe it regards this as stock in hand and, therefore, it can excuse itself from replying honestly to the question. However, the property passed to the control of the Department of Administrative Services. The document continues: In addition for FY 87-88 the Government directed that as a part of broader financial initiatives Defence should itself undertake some additional property disposal. The Department of Defence then supplied two lists. It stated: The Defence properties at Attachment A are planned for disposal by the Department of Defence in 1987-88. Additionally, the former Defence properties at Attachment B which had previously been declared for disposal to the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) are planned for disposal by DAS in 1987-88. Those Tasmanian properties are in Attachment B, which Senator Newman referred to, which means that they have already gone over to the Department of Administrative Services for disposal and there is an enormous list of the properties concerned. How many of these properties have been idle and for how long? For how long has taxpayers' money been wasted? Is there a good reason why they should have been held which has suddenly disappeared as the Government rushes round making money at this stage selling them off with this new-found enthusiasm about privatising bodies, particularly surplus defence properties? It may be the case with some of the properties listed in Attachment A, which the Government is trying to sell off-such as Navy married quarters in Neutral Bay-that there are different views within the Navy. Who knows what its view is as to whether these are surplus defence properties. I do not know. The Department has been good enough to provide us with a list of properties that are to be sold which have apparently been declared surplus for some time. I believe that it is, therefore, fair to inquire: How long have these properties been surplus? How long have they been empty? What are the values of those properties? It seems to me that this whole issue is one of monumental incompetence and, to make it worse, a continual cover up. Why have we not been told? What is the problem in telling the Senate the facts? I am interested to see that in regard to another issue I raised-that of the incompetence of the Department of Administrative Services in disposing of items-Telecom Australia had said that it would cost a lot less to do its own property disposals than to rely on the Department of Administrative Services. Telecom stated: Almost since its inception Telecom has had the staff to operate independently of DOLGAS which to a very large extent merely duplicates the Telecom effort. Telecom already has 112 staff nationally engaged in the property function. Of these 34 i.e. over 30% hold formal real estate qualification and many others are currently undertaking courses of study. Savings to Telecom, if granted exemption from the Land Acquisitions Act- in other words, having to work through the Department of Administrative Services- would exceed $1 million a year. Telecom regards the `middleman role' of DOLGAS as a constraining influence on it in the pursuit of handling the acquisition, leasing and disposal of property efficiently in carrying out the function of providing telecommunications services to the nation in a business-like manner. Every bit of evidence we have seen indicates that this Government is handling this issue monumentally incompetently. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order! The honourable senator's time has expired. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.44) —Senator Michael Baume has managed to knock over more straw men in the last quarter of an hour than I could count. To take him back to his original question, he accuses us of either filibustering or failing to answer. I understood the original question to be: On how many properties is there dead rent? I am only summarising now. Senator Michael Baume —No, that is not the question. Did any properties owned or rented by the Department-- Senator ROBERT RAY —I am coming to that. So it was not only rented; it was owned and then a total forgone figure, if you like, was asked for. There are difficulties with that. For a start, the Department of Administrative Services does not control all government property. The honourable senator is only asking about property for the Department of Administrative Services. Senator Michael Baume —I asked every Department. Senator ROBERT RAY —The way the question was put to me, it was all government property. That is why I responded that it may be an herculean task, especially for me and my Department, to respond in that particular way and to respond accurately to make sure that we had not missed a lighthouse here, a rented property there or some other vacant land. That is why I said it was herculean. What we did first of all was get the rent figures. Answers at the Estimates Committee hearing were given initially and later amended. I stress that they were later amended. The first thing I should mention is that forgone rent was 1.3 per cent, but it depends on the definition and how one approaches these matters. We took the least generous definition to the Department and re-evaluated that. We came up with a figure of $6.2m up to the middle of May in forgone rent, which was about 2 per cent. When compared with other commercial enterprises, it was reasonable and, compared with previous government performance, was a large improvement. I will take the honourable senator back to the Fraser days. The Fraser Government would have been delighted if it had 2 per cent in dead rent in those days. One only has to go to the record of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and other committees to establish that point. However, I think we have at least satisfactorily answered the question on rented property. We now come to government-owned properties. I can only answer in terms of the Department of Administrative Services, which admittedly is used as the biggest department in any way in dealing with these matters. There are really two questions: Firstly, what properties are vacant of office accommodation? We are not talking about all government properties because that is impossible to answer. I am willing to have a go at that in a moment and give a qualified answer. The second key question is: How much does it cost the taxpayer? I cannot answer that because rent has not been charged on those buildings in the past; not in our Government, nor in the previous Government. I am not going to go into too much detail, but that policy is under active review at the moment and will be subject to a Cabinet decision in the next few weeks. I cannot explore that any further without breaching confidence. That is the reason why it is so difficult to establish the forgone cost. Let me give an example: Let us say that the Department of Immigration, Local Government and Ethnic Affairs moves in to a government-owned building. It is not charged rent and a nominal rent has never been established historically. We can argue that it should be and the Government is very sympathetic to that. As I say, those matters are under very active consideration at the moment. But it would have been an herculean task from scratch to apply an attributed rent to every one of those government agencies in a government building; it would have been a massive task. We are not responsible in essence for Telecom Australia and the post office. We are not responsible for the Defence Department. There is not a central register of all government properties; there never has been as far as I can tell. Let us look at some of the vacant properties. In Queensland there is the Commonwealth Centre, Brisbane, A Block, which has 17 floors and part of the first floor is vacant; the Commonwealth Centre, Brisbane, B Block, has seven floors and four floors are vacant or partly vacant; the Taxation Building in Adelaide Street, Brisbane, has 12 floors of which three floors are vacant. Some of this is due to ongoing refurbishment. In Victoria, there is 11 William Street, Melbourne, which has 16 floors of which 12 floors are vacant; and Jensen House, Melbourne, has 12 floors of which one floor is vacant. In the Australian Capital Territory there is the Albermarle Building, Woden, which has eight floors of which three floors are vacant; the Alexander Building, Woden, has eight floors of which one floor is vacant; the Edmund Barton Building, Barton, has five floors and parts of the five floors are vacant; and the Treasury Building, E Block, Parkes, has three floors of which three floors are vacant. The note I have is slightly inaccurate. A small area in West Block is also vacant at the moment after last week's storm. I add that for accuracy. I am not in a position yet to give a percentage figure for all government owned buildings that have vacant space in them. I would have to know their size, et cetera. Senator Baume's concerns are relevant and justified, but saying that public servants or Ministers have just been dragging the chain is not justifiable. Given past practices and the failure to calculate rent on government buildings, these figures do not come easily. The figures on rent did, as it turned out; we had a central register. It has been measured for quite a period, so it was a relatively easy task. It is not too hard a task to identify government buildings controlled by the Department of Administrative Services and say how much area is vacant. However, going across the whole gamut of every statutory authority in every department would be a rather large task. I guess by asking each department, though, and getting an answer it would eventually be established-but at a fairly large cost. I reject the implication that things are absolutely out of control. There will always be examples of vacant buildings being an obvious waste of taxpayers' money. There will always be examples of dead rent. The real question to consider is whether these amounts are abnormal and whether they are vastly different from what a commercial developer and property owner would face. We also have to look at the historical trend. With rented properties, on which we have accurate figures, we can say that the historical trend is good. Basically it is on the way down. I cannot give figures, other than for space, for government owned buildings for which no rent is charged. If ever we move to a system-again I do not want to anticipate-where rent is charged to each department occupying a government building the sort of figures Senator Baume is seeking will be a lot more easily accessible and much more readily available. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.52) —I thank the Minister for his forthright response and also for his correction of a totally misleading response by the Department of Administrative Services to Senate Estimates questions. The Minister has just revealed that the Department does have empty space in various buildings around Australia. He gave us an informative list. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(5.52) —There is a difference in definition. When the Department gave that answer it was referring just to vacant space; it regarded space being refurbished as not being vacant per se. So it is a matter of definition. But Senator Baume says the Department misled him. It was its intention to say that there was no vacant space just sitting there never being used. The vacant space it was referring to was being refurbished. I do not know whether that clears that up. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(5.53) —It does not. I thank the Minister for trying, valiantly, on the Department's behalf. No doubt it will be grateful. I must say I find the Minister's reply totally unacceptable. The Department is fully aware of this issue because I have raised it for over a year, in particular in relation to the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission's use, or lack of use, of 80 William Street, Sydney. The Department is perfectly well aware of the fact that I have been nagging the hell out of it and the Government over the fact that something like $4m in dead rent has been paid on that one building while it has taken something like two years to fit it out. In fact, I have a response from the Department which deals with that very issue. It is a response to a question I asked, at Senate Hansard page E101, about whether 80 William Street was fully occupied yet, because past answers had said it had taken a long time to fit out, for various reasons, and that was why it was still unoccupied. The Department responded that the fitout was delayed due to a plumbers' strike, the non-supply of door locks, late changes in client briefing requirements for a court signalling system and the provision of 24-hour air-conditioning for guard posts. There are other reasons, too, such as the fact that in the original design brief approximately 905 square metres was set aside for use by the proposed industrial courts. But we have not passed that legislation yet. The fact is that the Department is fully aware that while areas are being refurbished, while fitout is going on, they have been classified as empty space because they are not being used by the department for whom it was designed. The Department responded to another question concerning the Department of Social Security in Wollongong and dead rent during the fitout period. The Department of Social Security space there has been empty and unusable for a longer period than the office space has been used. The Department has now left that area anyway, having spent something like $650,000 on either rent or fitout and having used the space for only a very short time. The fitout time was longer than the time the space was eventually occupied for. Senator Newman —Incredible. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Incredible indeed. This is the sort of thing that the failure to have effective control over property has brought us to-monumental waste. This kind of obfuscation from the Department is simply unacceptable. I remind the Minister of the Department's response to the following Senate Estimates question which I put to every department and statutory authority: Did any property owned or rented by the Department remain empty or significantly underutilised during the past 12 months? If so, for what length of time and for what reasons was it empty or underutilised? If the property is owned, what is its value, area and address? The Minister will note that I did not say imputed lease or rent costs. I might say that Australia Post had no problem answering that question. Apparently it is the only honest department or instrumentality. It actually came forward with the information. It was either the only honest or the only competent one to come forward and tell its story. Not all of it was happy reading, but at least Australia Post told us. I also asked: If the property is rented or leased, what is the amount of this rental and the address and the area of the property. In response to that question the Department of Administrative Services, which has now conceded that it has all these empty properties around Australia, said: There are no properties, owned, rented or leased for use by this Department which are empty or significantly under-utilised. I object to being misled in this disgraceful way by any bureaucracy. I do not hold the Minister responsible for it; he did not make the reply, although he is responsible for the actions of his employees. I would think that the Minister has a great task in front of him to ensure that questions asked by senators in Senate Estimates committee hearings are honestly answered. I reject his attempt to justify what is in fact a totally inaccurate reply in the kindly, sweetness and light manner that he did a little while ago. The interesting thing about this matter is the deliberate choice of words by this Department. It says: There are no properties, owned, rented or leased for use by this Department which are empty or significantly under-utilised. Do we have a definition of `for use by this Department'? This sneaky term has been used-I emphasise the word `sneaky'-in the context of the Department being advised by me at Senate Estimates hearings that we had asked this question of every department and statutory body and they had all said, `We do not look after our property; you would have to ask Administrative Services'. If Administrative Services was not aware of this fact-- Senator Peter Baume —The truth but not the whole truth. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —It may be the truth, but I have my doubts about it. I am not certain whether all the properties that the Minister has mentioned are not in fact for the use of the Department. It is inconceivable to think that any department would come here and use this particular form of words, knowing full well what the real question is and knowing that when I asked that question of every other department I was told, `No, this is a matter for the Department of Administrative Services'. I do not know whether the Senate as a whole feels that it is quite proper to be misled in this way. I must say I am on the brink of saying to the Minister that I believe that until he and his Department can answer this question honestly we should defer the rest of the consideration of these estimates. This chamber is being led a disgraceful dance by this Minister's Department. There are simple questions. There should be simple answers. I am sick of the obfuscation. Maybe the Minister is not aware of the schedule that Australia Post managed to provide quite happily. It was a fairly simple schedule and, presumably because it is an efficient organisation, it had ready access to the information. I am wondering where Telecom's information is-I restate this-because I was under the impression from Telecom that it would provide this information through the Minister last week. I ask the Minister: Has that information been provided from Telecom yet? If not, does he know why not, and if it has been provided, will the Minister-- Senator Robert Ray —Which Minister? Senator MICHAEL BAUME —This is Telecom. Senator Robert Ray —Yes, but which Minister? The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order! Senator Baume, please speak through the Chair. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —I am sorry, Mr Temporary Chairman. The Minister was interjecting and asking me a question. If the Minister has received the information from Telecom, why has it not been made available to us before this debate, because this debate provides us with the opportunity to deal with information provided to us in reponse to questions that were unsatisfactorily answered or not answered during Senate Estimates committee hearings? Maybe this Government is quite happy to make a farce of this kind of proceeding but I think it is absolutely disgraceful; and it seems to me, as I said earlier, that there is an element of cover-up in these proceedings. There are some other matters I would like to raise, but I hope that the Minister will be able to deal with these ones before I proceed to some other matters which I believe are also disgraceful. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.01) —I have just listened to Senator Michael Baume saying `the Minister'. Am I supposed to supply the Telecom answers? Is that what he is saying? Or is he shifting his ground all the time? Senator Michael Baume —Who is the relevant Minister? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am certainly not, but the honourable senator does not give that impression in here. He made the point very clearly-- Senator Michael Baume —You are representing him, aren't you-the Minister for Administrative Services? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sorry; that is different. I thought the honourable senator meant the Minister in charge of Telecom. I certainly have not seen any Telecom figures. There would be no desire to hold up the information. I anticipated this debate would be starting again next Thursday. So from that point of view I have not been poking around today chasing up any unanswered questions. It was a bigger surprise to me than to anyone opposite when this debate came on at 4 o'clock or whenever. Again, there is a lot of confusion as to the role of the Department of Administrative Services in terms of property matters. We do not control all property. Statutory authorities tend to control most of their own, as does the Department of Defence in many areas and as do many other departments. Certainly in terms of office areas Administrative Services tends to have a higher role. Senator Baume said the Department of Administrative Services was sneaky when it refers to only itself, but he put specific questions to every department. Administrative Services probably presumed that his question was meant to refer only to it. He said that this whole process raised questions. The biggest question raised in my mind is whether in future we will allow questions to be placed on notice straightaway. Maybe some of these things are better teased out at the Estimates committee meetings so that people can clarify what he means by his questions, not what he assumes he means by his questions because it can be two-- Senator Michael Baume —Are you confused by that simple question? Senator ROBERT RAY —Some of the questions, out of context, can be confusing. As such, I think Administrative Services can presume, when he asked the same question he has asked every other department, that he was asking it, a department, on its use of buildings rather than the total use of buildings. Senator Michael Baume —I told them that at the Senate Estimates Committee every other department referred it to them. Senator ROBERT RAY —That is true, but you did not include that in your question on notice. It has been a long tradition in the Estimates process that departments answer direct questions; they do not give additional information. They do not add bonuses. It is not their role to do so. Senator Michael Baume —Their role is to mislead the Senate, is it? Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Baume is making the accusation that it deliberately meant to mislead the Senate. I have not seen any evidence of that and I do not think he has sustained an argument sufficient to lead me to that conclusion. I have pointed out some of the difficulties in answering some of the questions he has been posing, but the base material is not necessarily there to answer them absolutely. He says that it should be. I say-- Senator Michael Baume —Australia Post can do it. Senator ROBERT RAY —Each enterprise can, but not as a totality across all government-owned property. The Department of Administrative Services does not control all government-owned property. That is very difficult to estimate and put forward. Senator Michael Baume says that we should have done it. He was in government prior to 1983; why did he not do it; was it not a good idea? Why did he not think about it then, because exactly the same position pertained? I have indicated, without providing any details, that this is one area of reform that we have before us at the moment. Some of the estimates information that he wants will be far easier to obtain in future because the area may be reformed, if Cabinet is so minded in the next few weeks. Senator Michael Baume —Maybe we could have done it if we had had an effective Opposition. Senator ROBERT RAY —You might not have had an effective Opposition, I do not know. I remember a Minister here in 1982 attacking Senator McLaren, Senator Gietzelt and me, saying that we were obstructive on Estimates committees and that we had asked too many questions. He eventually threw documents at us, but that is neither here nor there. I recognise that the Estimates process is a very valuable one in keeping governments on the track. I never denigrate it. I sometimes denigrate the extent of irrelevancy of some of the questions asked by some senators. The worst offender is no longer here. I will not pursue that any further. But in one sense Senator Baume is right. I do not object to his criticising the departments; it keeps them on the ball. I am sure the Department of Defence fears the Estimates hearings far more than it fears any external enemy. I have no doubt about that from seeing its reaction to them. But I think Senator Baume is going a little too far in his criticism. I do no think the departments are being quite as obstructive as he thinks. However, I have no doubt that these matters-especially the property areas-will be pursued again in the spring. I hope to have better news in terms of making that assessment as to what is the cost of a vacated government-owned building. As I say, there is no imputed rent at all. It is very difficult to establish that value. I hope that by the time we come back we will at least be able to do that. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.07) —I have several separate issues to raise in terms of making points or asking questions. Unless the Minister wants to answer them one by one I will go through them together; I am in his hands. The first question relates to the debate we were having in committee when we adjourned on 20 May. I had been asking the Minister what had been done by the Government to take forward cover or otherwise in relation to the sale of the Australian Embassy in Tokyo. He did not have that information available and he promised to get it to me as quickly as possible. I have not heard any more on that. Does he have a response as yet? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.08) —Yes. I think I had the answer in my Question Time brief. I was going to produce it at the next Estimates hearing. I am informed that the final settlement of the Australian Embassy consolidation project in Tokyo took place on Friday, the 20th. I was only guesstimating last time but the accurate settlement figure was 51,410,718,800 yen. This amount has been received and was immediately passed over to the Reserve Bank of Australia in Tokyo. Of course, there was a deposit of 6,263,085,500 yen prior to that. Therefore, the total amount received was 57.7 billion yen. Translated into Australian dollars it comes to a figure of $606,795,231. The other part of Senator Short's question was whether governments make arrangements for fluctuations in exchange rates. That is not the normal practice and it was not done on this occasion. On this occasion we were not the beneficiaries of exchange rate movements; on other occasions we have been. Senator Short —What was the yen rate? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am sorry, I do not have that information. I think it was 95 to 96 yen per Australian dollar, which was higher than the yen rate at the time, which was 90 yen to the Australian dollar. Maybe I can get some further information on that. We could calculate it accurately by calculating back from the expected Australian dollar return. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.10) —I thank the Minister for that reply. Subject to checking my figures, I think that means that through not having taken any action in relation to covering this contract, the Government has thereby cost the Australian taxpayer about $40m, in Australian dollar terms, as a result of that yen rate compared with the 90 yen to the dollar rate that was mentioned in the Press release by the Minister for Administrative Services (Mr West) on 11 March. The Minister at the table says that it is not common practice to take forward cover or other covering arrangements in a case like this. If the Commonwealth is going to get itself involved in selling off its silver and other assets around the world, it is about time we started to look at our arrangements in terms of taking appropriate exchange rate provisions, because a loss of $30m to $40m-I think that would be the range-is a very large loss indeed. I am not necessarily asking for a comment, but the Minister can respond if he wants. I would urge the Government-this is an area for which I think the Minister has responsibility-to look at this question of the appropriate arrangements to be made with currency cover in a world of rapidly changing exchange rates, when we may be involved in continuing operations of this nature around the world, either in the case of purchases or sales of assets. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.12) —I do not know whether the honourable senator can think of an example in the past where the Government has taken forward cover. A commercial enterprise goes to the futures market and covers itself, but I do not know of any provision world wide where that can occur particularly for governments, but if there is, I will certainly undertake to have a good look at it. As I say, there are swings and roundabouts in this, and with the appreciating dollar some of the Department of Defence contracts we have entered into will be a lot cheaper. So the appreciating dollar will pick up more money for us in other areas-who knows? As I say, there are ups and downs. As the honourable senator knows, it is not easy to anticipate exchange rates, but I would be interested to hear whether it has been done before by the Australian Government. Senator Michael Baume —The ABC does it-only after a lengthy delay, which cost it millions. Senator ROBERT RAY —The Australian Broadcasting Corporation is a statutory authority as such. That is one interesting example I am happy to look at to see whether governments per se, and especially the Reserve Bank of Australia, are in the process of doing that. One could criticise the Reserve Bank, because it is essentially one of those involved in this. But when we look at the profits it has made, for the Australian taxpayer I might add, through the volatility of the Australian dollar, we are still a long way in front. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.13) —With respect to the Minister, I do not think it is particularly relevant whether in the past we have or have not done these covering arrangements. The point I am making is that we are now in an environment where a consideration of doing that is very important indeed. I would like to raise two other matters about the Department of Administrative Services before raising a couple of points on the Australian Electoral Commission. The first point relates to the method that the Department of Administrative Services is using to price some of its services that are sold to the public. I have in mind in particular the pricing structure for the sale through the government bookshops of reports of government agencies and departments, for example, those in relation to the Minister's own Department. Since the new administrative arrangements in July of last year I understand that the Department of Administrative Services has been responsible for producing and selling the following annual reports: for the old Department of Housing and Construction, the Australian Electoral Commission, the Parliament House Construction Authority, the Australian Archives, the old Department of Local Government and Administrative Services and the old Department of Special Minister of State. The cost of production of those reports ranges fairly widely. For example, the old Housing and Construction annual report cost $3.78 while the report of the Australian Electoral Commission cost $5.06. There is quite a range in the figures that have been provided to me. What is more surprising to me is the variation in the mark-up that has been accorded to the various reports so far as their sale to the public is concerned. The advice I have is that, for example, the report of the old Department of Housing and Construction cost $3.78 per unit but it was actually sold for $14.95. The report of the Archives cost $4.10 and it was sold for only $5.90. So there is obviously an enormous variation between the mark-ups from one to the other. I would like to know what formula is adopted by the Department and what is proposed in the future so far as its pricing policy for these and other services that it may sell. Senator Robert Ray —I cannot help Senator Short. I will have to seek advice on that as there is no-one here able to assist me on that matter. Senator SHORT —My next point relates to Federal Government advertising. The costs of Government advertising have increased quite staggeringly in the five years of the Hawke Government. I am advised that the figure in this latest year well exceeds $30m. The point that concerns me is not just the increase in costs, staggering though that may be, but the fact that there has been a dramatic political focus in Government advertising, the likes of which we have not experienced I think from governments of all political persuasions in the past. Senator Michael Baume —Absolutely disgraceful. Senator SHORT —As Senator Michael Baume says, it is an absolute disgrace. The amount of taxpayers' money that is being spent on the promotion of the Labor Government, its prominent members and its policies, is quite outrageous. The amount that we saw spent on the Priority One program, the promotion of the prices and incomes accord, not to mention the fringe benefits tax campaign, is staggering political aggrandisement in using taxpayers' money for advertising purposes. The focal point of much of this advertising has not just been the Government but personalities, and in particular the amount of money that has been spent on promoting the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) is out of this world. That was particularly the case with the Priority One campaign, but there were many others as well. The other point that concerns me considerably, and I know many others in the community, is that the agencies that have been handling virtually all of the Government's work have had very strong and defined links with the Australian Labor Party. I ask whether the new system of advertising that the Government now has in place, and which I think was announced earlier this year-whereby we have three master agencies handling all media placements-will operate in a way that will in any way correct the very glaring deficiencies and concerns that I have mentioned in relation to the political focus as distinct from what ought to be the real focus of government advertising under this Government? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.19) —We did not have a new system announced this year. It is the same system that has worked for several years. The honourable senator may have taken it that way because there was at least one new master agency used and it replaced another one. I was interested to hear the honourable senator's comments. To summarise, I think in effect he was saying that we have been sending advertising to our mates. Who? I do not know. We have a master agency that books the space and then it assesses who it wants to do the creative work, if you like. I think that that is a fairly sensible system, because it means that the placement agency can return a lot of the money into government coffers by being a master booking agency. There has been absolutely no political direction as to which agencies get advertisements. The master agency determines who gets the creative work; I certainly do not. Those decisions do not come before the information coordination branch or the Ministerial Council associated with it. I suggest that one gets into these systems of devolution out of self-protection. The last thing one wants to be involved in is which research company does the research and which advertising company goes ahead and does the creative work. I do not get involved in that and I am certain that the master agency has no desire to get involved. Senator Short raised the broader question of his interpretation as to whether government advertising is directed towards the Government's good and its own self-aggrandisement. My observation from the side is that sometimes I wish it did. Most are information campaigns rather than Government advertising per se. The honourable senator referred to the fringe benefits tax advertising. If that picked up new votes for the Labor party, I would like to know about it. Senator Short —Well, you were using it to try to soften the blow for your Government. Senator ROBERT RAY —In that case it was a waste of money, if that is all it was meant to achieve, because it certainly did not do that. There is a whole range of government information campaigns. Often in opposition one thinks that they impinge on a political campaign. I remember the selling of the 1982 Budget and the little family advertisements saying that it was a good family Budget and so on, based on a post-Budget survey. At that time we argued that that was fairly political. Those fine judgments are very hard to make as to how political such advertisements are. On the other hand, I would not like to see simply the assertion that every government information campaign is political, thus preventing governments being able to promote certain policies. For instance, it would be disappointing if we could not advertise the family package in some way. I saw an advertisement for the family package in the football Record four weeks ago and Sky Channel has also been used. We are trying to reach a specific market of the very people likely to take up that package. I deny that specific firms are given jobs because of political connections. Some firms with political connections may well get the job if they tender for it because theirs is the best project, but there is no ministerial interference from me to suggest that X firm or Y firm should get a job. Senator Short —Do I interpret the Minister's remarks correctly in that in no instance of the allocation of contracts for Government advertising campaigns is there any ministerial discretion or involvement? Is that what the Minister is saying? Senator ROBERT RAY —I am saying two things. I am saying that I, as one of the Ministers involved, do not get involved in the awarding of a contract to one firm or another; the master agency does that. I am saying that very specifically. It may well be that once a campaign is under way, or prior to a campaign getting under way, it is shown to the information coordination branch to see whether it is up to scratch. At that stage we may put comments, but I am talking about the choosing of an agency. The information coordination branch gets involved in making sure that each government department that wants to advertise goes through the due process in choosing the correct agency, be it for advertising, public relations or anything else. What I am saying is that I do not centrally direct, let us say, Minister X, to use such and such an agency. I do not do that not only as a matter of principle but also as a matter of self-interest, because the accusation could always be made that I directed the Minister to A, B or C. Even the Liberal Party's advertising agency probably got a run occasionally in those days, not on the basis that there was a Liberal government-it is the same with the Labor Party-but on the basis that it put in the best tender. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(6.25) —Has the Government been engaged in opinion survey polling, in the last five years? If so, who has done the polling? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.25) —A variety of polls have been done to ascertain public opinion on a variety of subjects and a variety of opinion polling organisations have been used. As I understand it, a matter goes out for tender, the tenders come in, and the best tenderer gets the job. Senator Short —Can the Minister provide me with information as to the firms that have received contracts in the opinion polling area over the last five years? In particular, can he tell me whether the Morgan Research Centre has received any Government work in the last five years? Senator ROBERT RAY —If I could qualify the last part of Senator Short's remarks, if a firm did not tender for a contract it certainly would not have got one. I think I will be able to provide most of the information requested, although I am not sure whether it goes back five years. Certainly, we should be able to provide information for the last few years. At some stage I saw a list of who got which job and I am happy to see that it is made available. I have a feeling that it is already on the public record. If we can go back the five years, we will do so. If it is convenient to go back only four years, I will go back only four years. There is no attempt to obstruct Senator Short in getting a list. Senator PANIZZA(Western Australia)(6.27) —On 20 May Senator Newman directed the Minister's attention to Mr Beazley's new office in Victoria Park, Mint Street, Perth. I am not questioning his move to Victoria Park or to any office; what I am questioning is how the cost of $172,000 was arrived at. The figure has not been denied by anyone. It seems that the cost did not include rent and the property is not freehold. I think I am correct in saying that it involved merely refurbishing or fitting out the premises. Having a little experience in building, I know that one can build a lot in Perth for $172,000. That would be the all-up cost, including air conditioning, and the construction would be of double brick. I ask what the Government got for that amount. I do not know how many square metres are involved, but if the size is anywhere near what I think it is, I consider it to be a big rip-off. As the Minister knows, I moved into an office in a new centre in Perth in the last couple of weeks. I think that about 120 square metres was subdivided in a new building and one of the walls was already there. Yet the whole cost was $30,000. In view of my experience in building, I consider this to be a hell of a rip-off. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(6.28) —The breakdown of costs was electrical lighting, $28,000; mechanical air-conditioning, $48,000; building work, $63,000; carpets, $6,000; security $17,000; and common facilities, toilets, et cetera, $10,000, a total of $172,000. Senator Panizza —It was not a new building; it was a complete refurbishment. Does the Minister think that he got value for money? Senator ROBERT RAY —I often wonder whether any money we expend on refurbishment is value for money. The costs do vary. I will not go into all the details now; I might do so after dinner. Senator Panizza asked me whether the office is worth while. I have not visited it, so I have not had an on-site inspection. I hope to do so before the end of the year, at which stage I may be able to make some assessment. Not having visited it and not being an expert in building or construction, it is very hard for me to say whether I think it represents value for money. I am fairly satisfied that there was not any excessive expenditure involved. There were extra requirements. It is a combined ministerial-electorate office and it is different essentially from any of the others we have considered in these debates. However, I cannot answer that question. I am not a builder or an engineer. Sitting suspended from 6.30 to 8 p.m. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.00) —I would like to ask the Minister a couple of questions stemming from the Estimates committee hearings with the Electoral Commission and to make a couple of related comments. The first thing I would like to raise is the state of the electoral rolls, particularly in view of the referendums presumably coming up in the next few months and the State elections also coming up, certainly in my own State of Victoria. In the Estimates committee hearings, on other occasions and also in the report of the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform it was generally accepted that the ideal timing for habitation reviews would be each 12 months. Given that, at present, habitation reviews usually take place with a longer gap between them, where does the Minister put the importance of habitation reviews in his priorities when it comes to spending within the Electoral Commission? There is widespread concern and questioning at the moment about the cleanliness of the rolls. It seems to the Opposition that the habitation review is the key to cleanliness of the rolls. It worries me that we do not give it a higher priority. Where does the Minister put it in his list of priorities? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.03) —There had never been annual habitation reviews, or habitation reviews with absolute regularity, until the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform said that they had to take place every two years. The solution is further Commonwealth-State agreements. No honourable senator would believe that it is fair that the Commonwealth pick up all the costs of maintaining the electoral roll. Essentially, we do, although we are negotiating an agreement with South Australia that it pick up part of the cost. The highest priority is for me, and the Electoral Commission in particular, to try to convince the States that they should be involved in picking up part of the cost of the Electoral Commission's maintenance of the rolls because they are all beneficiaries of it. If that process can be speeded up, we might get to annual habitation reviews, which would go a long way towards satisfying people that the rolls are relatively clean. There are two ways the rolls can get out of kilter. Firstly, there is the habit of citizens not to fill out their enrolment cards, having moved. That is almost a natural process in our electoral system. Citizens tend to change their licences, their post office addresses and other things, but most overlook the electoral area. The second thing that could be said about unclean rolls is that they were deliberately stacked. There is no evidence that that occurs. I would not like anyone listening to this debate to think that the so-called lack of cleanliness of the rolls relates to that. On the first subject, the rolls have always changed behind people moving. The figure I have seen is that about 16 per cent of people move every year. I am not so sure whether they all move from one electorate to another; some move within an electorate. That high turnover will always create problems. I suppose that we could adopt a series of draconian measures to force people to be on the roll. We do not want to do that. One of the suggested uses for the Australia Card was to supply an automatic change of people on the roll. That is no longer an option. We have to get that balance, if you like, between keeping elections clean and democratic and protecting people's civil liberties. When Senator Short asks me what my priority is, I say that I am satisfied that a habitation review every two years is sufficient. We set ourselves a target to have the best electoral system in the world. I think it would be enhanced if the review were every year. The solution is to have joint Commonwealth-State agreements on rolls, similar to the one in South Australia. States would pick up half the costs, which would leave us with far more money available for such measures as habitation reviews. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.06) —The Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) will recall that during the Estimates Committee E hearings in April the Electoral Commissioner said: . . . the habitation review in the middle of last year, which was a particularly extensive and effective one, and the non-voter action following the July election, which finished around about December last year or January this year, have left the rolls in a sufficiently good state. In the same response to a question I asked, he said that the reason why 60,000 voters in Victoria who were taken off the rolls in December were spotted in the first instance was-and I quote: . . . they had not voted in July. We had spotted them for that and were in the process of removing them. That was as at the end of December. I confess to a considerable amount of concern at such a response to my question. That figure of 60,000 represents more than 2 per cent of the total voting population in Victoria. If more than 60,000 who were not listed accurately on the roll at the time of the July election were picked up only because they had not voted, that must make people-certainly me, and from the responses I get from around Australia, many other people-very concerned about the cleanliness of the rolls. I return to the importance of the habitation reviews and the other aspects which affect the cleanliness of the rolls. In particular, how could the Electoral Commissioner believe that the rolls were very clean when the only reason we found out that they were unclean was the fact that 60,000 people did not vote? Perhaps that is more of a comment than a question, but it seems to me to highlight the very significant importance of having a regular habitation review. Some of the answers to questions that were provided subsequent to the Committee hearings have confirmed my concerns about the cleanliness of the rolls. For example, I placed some questions on notice, to which I have now received answers. The first of those questions was: How many deletions should have been made to the rolls, but were not, prior to the July 1987 election? The answer that I received was as follows: Because the 1986-87 electoral roll review process was interrupted by the calling of the 11 July election, it is not possible to say how many people would have been removed from the rolls by objection had the review been followed to its conclusion. Another question I asked was: What was the degree of inaccuracy in the electoral rolls at the time of the July 1987 election? The answer was: The degree of inaccuracy of the electoral rolls at any particular time is not susceptible to direct measurement, because there is no way of determining, from ABS or other data, the number of persons eligible for enrolment at a given time. The third question was: Was any investigation carried out into whether votes had been recorded under the names of persons whose names should have been deleted? The response was: No. Then there were a few words of explanation. It continued: That a vote was cast in the name of a person who, had events followed a different course, would have been removed from the role by objection, is not even prima facie evidence of any irregularity. There was therefore no justification for any special investigations. Those answers to me are quite unsatisfactory because I think they leave in the mind of the reader a very real question as to whether the Electoral Commission can vouch with any degree of confidence for the accuracy of the rolls. I say that more as comment rather than necessarily to seek a response. It is an issue that is of very widespread concern in a way that it has not been for many years. Therefore, I would have expected the Government to be placing a high degree of priority on ensuring that the rolls are in a better state. We have only to talk to the divisional returning officers around Australia to know that it is widely accepted that the rolls are not clean at the moment. That is a basic problem in a democratic system. The whole basis for a democracy is that there are electoral rolls in which one can place a high degree of confidence. I do not think that is the situation. We have slipped very badly in recent years. It is a matter of quite major concern. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.12) —Senator Short has just said that we have slipped very badly, but he has said nothing to establish or show what is different now from the situation 10 or 15 years ago. There are more regular habitation reviews now. The system at least is computerised now and the process is much quicker. The honourable senator said nothing to show that it had suddenly slipped. He has gone into that rhetoric with absolutely no basis. We do have processes of objection. We have set procedures before people's names can be taken off the roll. Until those procedures are undertaken and completed, they are entitled to be on the roll. That attitude is not peculiar to this side of politics. I remember from being on the Joint Select Committee on Electoral Reform that, when we debated the extent of the obligation on the Electoral Office to contact people whose names were going to be taken off the roll, it was very strongly and forcefully put that every effort should be made to contact those people before their names were taken off the roll. This is not the first time the honourable senator has raised this issue. On a previous occasion the honourable senator raised the case of the Ballarat election in 1980. Does the honourable senator remember that? Senator Short —Yes. Senator ROBERT RAY —He sent out letters and-correct me if I am wrong- came back and said, `Four hundred were returned. Doesn't this show that the rolls were bad?'. As a prima facie case, that was not bad, but I do not know to this day which roll was the basis for sending out those letters. Does the honourable senator know which roll-which year? Senator Short —They were sent out on the basis of new enrolments notified to my office- Senator ROBERT RAY —Investigation into that particular case showed-- Senator Short —Therefore, they were new enrolments, not old enrolments. Senator ROBERT RAY —That was not what was turned up in the investigation that was launched to check that. When we checked with Mr Ronan, who, I think, was the honourable senator's campaign director-- Senator Short —No. Senator ROBERT RAY —He at least claimed that a 1979 roll was used. I do not know how to reconcile that with the honourable senator's statement here today. Naturally, it would be substantially out of date. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.15) —There is obviously a misunderstanding on the Minister's part. I was talking about the `not known at this address' response to the new enrollees that had come onto the roll, the names and sticky labels of which I received week by week. It was not the old roll; it was the new enrolments. Senator Michael Baume —I get the same experience. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.15) —The honourable senator says that he has the same experience. That may well indicate that there are some problems. But I am waiting for evidence that the situation is worse now than it used to be. It is the old case of political amnesia. The Liberals have been in opposition for long enough to say, `Well, if it has always been that way, it has always been at fault'. This matter can also be looked at from a comparative point of view. If one compares the effort we put into the upkeep of the rolls in Australia to that of other countries, one will find that on the whole our rolls stand up very well to their standards, if not exceed them. But if the Opposition is seeking absolute perfection-that is, at any one time 10 million names and addresses recorded on a piece of paper are going to be accurate at every point-one would need to have a habitation review every week. There are, however, long term methods by which the rolls can be made a lot better. One way of doing this is by using on-line computers in electoral offices. I cannot say that that is going to happen next year. If the Opposition were in government it would not be able to fund such an undertaking. It takes time to introduce these sorts of things. But we might get a lot closer to achieving that aim by using such methods. After the last election only one year had elapsed-and in some cases a lot less than one year-from the previous habitation review. Maybe the answer for absolutely clean rolls is not just yearly habitation reviews. I will be interested to hear how one can absolutely ensure that every citizen changes his name on the roll prior to or after moving. It is very interesting how one can do this in our sort of society, in which we do not want a Big Brother approach. The problem can be solved by such an approach, but we have to measure that off against the worth of the other. I say this to Senator Short: I do not regard the current rolls as being perfect. I regard them as being satisfactory, the same as does Mr Hughes. But I would need some proof from the honourable senator that the maintenance of the rolls in their current state is worse than it has ever been. One of the things that have changed in the Electoral Commission is that the Commission's standards and measurements have improved enormously in the last 10 years. The criteria by which the Commission is judged a success is a constantly rising standard. A lot of issues would never have been considered in the past because measurement standards did not exist to establish whether there was a problem. So, in regard to the cleanliness of the roll, I do not accept the honourable senator's proposition that the rolls are worse now than they used to be. I think that is nonsense. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.18) —I am sure that the Minister for Home Affairs (Senator Robert Ray) and I would both agree that it is very hard to get hard evidence to support the anecdotal. This has always been the case and it always will be. All I can say is that now a far greater number of people, including divisional returning officers, come to me and say that the rolls are in more disarray than was the case in the past. I think that comes down to a question of where the Government places its priorities so far as expenditure in areas under its responsibility is concerned. Let me pick up one other point in relation to this matter. Although this is a somewhat different point, it stems from something which the Minister just said. Before I do that, I point out that I am not saying that habitation reviews are the be-all and end-all. I am at least as concerned with people who are on the roll as those who perhaps should not be on it. In that context, I am greatly concerned that there can be an enormous influx of people onto the electoral rolls a couple of weeks before the rolls close prior to a general election. As we both know, none of those entries or applications is checked. I think that is a matter of very real concern. I do not know what the answer is; I do not have a ready answer. But it is something that we both ought to be looking at. The Minister mentioned on-line computer facilities. I would like to raise with the Minister briefly a question which is under review at the moment by the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters and also, therefore, I assume, within the Government, perhaps one step further down the road, and that is the question of regionalisation of divisional returning officers. The proposal to group together the divisional returning officer and to regionalise the system was in the report that was commissioned by the Electoral Commissioner and carried out by Ms Diane Saunders. That report recommended that if there were regionalisation, it would be worthwhile only if there were appropriate expenditure on computer facilities in the regionalised offices. Will the Government guarantee that funds for such computer facilities would be available in the event of the Government deciding to go down the regionalisation route? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.21) —I have an answer to that last point. The honourable senator made a point before that escapes me. Senator Short might remind me of the second last point he made before he moved on to regionalisation. Senator Short —Was it the one about the number of people who come on to the rolls just prior to an election? Senator ROBERT RAY —I might deal with that matter first. The reason we get a lot of people coming on to the rolls just before an election is that publicity has crystallised it in their minds. We really have to add up whether it is worse to announce an election, as happened in 1983, and close the rolls 24 hours later, catching all those people who say, `I will do it next week' and then do not get a chance to do it. I do not think, per se, that the rush of people on to the rolls is wrong. However, there are a couple of aspects to that. Most of the people can be checked in one way or another in as much as they may have been on a previous roll. However, in future some resources should be made available to make sure that the roll is not being stacked. I defy the honourable senator to find anywhere in Australia so far where the roll has been stacked; it has not. However, the more often we talk about such things the more likely they are to occur, and not necessarily by an organised political force. Most organised political forces-Labor, Liberal and National-are too smart to try to stack a roll because they know they will be caught and will be taken to a court of disputed returns. The party which is caught will also have to pay costs. But some resources can be made available to do a spot check, especially on new enrollees; that is, those people on the roll for the first time. There have been a couple of cases where as an exercise a 16-year-old has enrolled and got a vote-there is no question of that. It is a user-friendly system and is always vulnerable to such things. But some checks will have to be run in future. I am quite happy to see some extra resources put into that area to check. If extra person-hours need to be put in, that is a worthwhile project. So on that point I share Senator Short's concern and believe that that, at least will give us an idea. Most of the people get caught at some stage. One thing that concerns me is journalists putting up people to do this, as a trial run. I do not think that is justifiable in a democracy. An Australian Broadcasting Corporation reporter did it in the last election. He put up some 16-year-old who I think we are now prosecuting. The reporter suggested he falsify his enrolment card. That sort of thing is wrong. If we want a user-friendly system on electoral rolls and in an electoral sense, we have a good system at the moment. If it is perverted in such a manner as I have described we then have to go to draconian measures, be it an identity card or something else. I am sure that none of us in this chamber want to move into that area. Or we could go to the African position where people are stamped after they vote. Of course, we all know that Coca Cola takes the stamp off in five seconds flat. On that matter I share the honourable senator's concern. Let us monitor progress. Senator Short asked me about regionalisation. I am a little hesitant about that. I usually wait for the all-powerful, influential and otherwise very good Standing Committee on Electoral Matters to report to me. I do not think that the matter is predicated only, from reading the report and from my knowledge of it, on computerisation. Getting some intermediate promotion levels in the Electoral Commission will be very good because sometimes there is too big a gap between the divisional returning offices and head office. There is a sort of central versus the sticks approach that develops in a bureaucracy, which is never very helpful. I look forward to the report with a totally open mind-I assure the honourable senator of that-on the value of regionalisation and, if regionalisation is not an option, maybe the grouping of officers or whatever else the Committee comes up with. I understand that coalition members have indicated that they have caucused against regionalisation. I think that they have probably done so for political reasons and I think that they are quite noble political reasons. I am not sure what the Labor members of the Committee and the others are inclined to do. I look forward to a quick report and a quick response on that. I do not think it is just predicated on computerisation or regionalisation. That was stressed in the report. I have not read all the evidence that has been put before someone such as Senator Short. I hope to when the final Hansards come out, but I do not think it has to be predicated absolutely on computerisation. Senator SHORT(Victoria)(8.26) —There are many other questions I would have liked to ask but obviously time is a major constraint, so I will restrict myself. I believe that the Australian Electoral Commission plays a very important role in our whole structure. Therefore I assume that its expert advice, of which there is a very great deal of expertise in the Commission, is used readily. In that context, I ask the Minister: Was the Electoral Commission asked for advice as to how the referendum proposals might impact on the electoral proposals for the Australian Capital Territory? Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.26) —I can be a little broader than that. The Electoral Commission was originally consulted on certain technical matters, but it was not consulted as to the effect the referendum would have in an individual State or Territory. It certainly was not consulted about what effect the referendum would have on a proposed Australian Capital Territory voting system. I think I had a query in my office this morning following an article concentrating on Senator Amanda Vanstone on this issue which indicated that the Electoral Commission had not been consulted on it and then as things developed it became fairly clear that it had not been consulted. As to whether it should have, the Attorney-General's Department does have carriage of the matter. Too often it is assumed that I do for some reason or other. Senator Puplick —There would not have been the mistake if you had been. Senator ROBERT RAY —I am not so sure about that. There might have been a lot more mistakes if I did have carriage of it. But probably on balance, if the honourable senator asks for my judgment, I think that it may have been better in the circumstances to use the experience of the Electoral Commission to say, `How do you think this will affect States or Territories?'. That was not done and it is regrettable. We have had that debate once today already. We all regret the fact that it may be necessary to move a further amendment. These matters are really ultimately up to the High Court of Australia to decide, but it is usually best to make them very clear. The simple answer to Senator Short's question is: No, the Electoral Commission was not consulted on this matter but it could have been late this afternoon. Senator Short —Does that also apply in respect of the drafting of the four referendum Bills? Was the Electoral Commission involved in the drafting of those Bills? Senator ROBERT RAY —To give an accurate argument, the Electoral Commission was asked about some of the technicalities. I do not know the answer for sure. Senator Short —I am sorry; `drafting' is the wrong word. Was the Commission asked to provide advice? Senator ROBERT RAY —The Electoral Commission was asked on some of the more technical aspects. I am not terribly sure what that exactly involved. I will try to find out for the honourable senator. I cannot give the honourable senator what its advice was, but I can give him what areas it was asked to advise on. All I know specifically is that it was not asked to advise in the two areas I have indicated to the honourable senator. Senator Short —If you could give me that information, I would appreciate it. Senator ROBERT RAY —I will try. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.29) —I want to raise a few very brief matters that have arisen out of answers to Senate Estimates Committee questions. The first one relates to the new Commonwealth Government Centre in Wollongong which was banned by public servants. They refused to move into it for more than a month because no car parking spaces were provided, there was not an adequate security guard and they required a 40-place free child minding centre. I asked the Department in the Senate Estimates Committee hearing what would have been the cost of providing these facilities. The total cost was $500,000 a year made up in part of $100,000, provided there was only a 20-person work-related child-care centre rather than the 40-place one that was sought. That $100,000 simply related to the cost of administering rather than any capital cost of providing facilities. There was a $250,000 cost in providing paid car parking for 120 people, and the full time security guard requested would have required something like $50,000. As I said, it involved around half a million dollars a year. Had the demands of the unions been fully met it would have involved another $100,000, giving a total of about $600,000 a year. The point made in response to this was that the cost would multiply many times over if the Department were to agree to provide these facilities in Wollongong and they became standard in all other Commonwealth work places. The reason that is significant is that, as I understand it, these matters are now before the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. It seems to me that unless the Commonwealth is successful-I assume the Commonwealth is opposing these requests, and I ask the Minister where it is-there will be an enormous additional increase in the cost of providing facilities for public servants along these lines. I really wonder whether the Government is committed to opposing them in the terms that I think Mr West used in Wollongong recently, when he said it is wrong for one group of employees to make demands for something nobody else has. I seek an assurance that the Government will be vigorously opposing that kind of request in view of the enormous cost. The next matter I want to raise also relates to Wollongong. I have already raised in the chamber the extraordinary situation where the Department of Social Security leased for 36 months a property that it occupied for 16 months. The rest of the time it was being fitted out or there was a dispute over asbestos, or it was just empty. The reason I raise this again is that I asked a question of both the Department of Social Security and the Department of Administrative Services on this issue, and naturally they gave me totally different answers. I would like the Minister, if he could, to let me know who was giving me the accurate response. Was it the Department of Social Security or the Department of Administrative Services? Social Security said: A total amount of $446,000 rental was paid before the accommodation was occupied- that was for something like 20 months; it was then occupied for only 16 months- Payment of rental commenced on 13 May 1985. The original lease was for a period of 3 years from 13 May 1985 . . . It then went on to say that the fitout cost of the Wollongong regional office was $298,000. So we have there two figures: $446,000 for dead rent and $298,000 for fitout, a total of $744,000-three-quarters of a million dollars on fitting out or dead rent on a property that was occupied for all of 16 months. It is an absolutely ludicrous situation. It is even more ridiculous because in response to the same question the Department of Administrative Services said that rent for the fitout period was $339,000, not $446,000, and the cost for the fitout of the premises was $313,500, not $298,00. In other words, the Administrative Services figures add up to about $653,251 and the Department of Social Security figures add up to $744,000. These figures are in the same ballpark; the cost of dead rent and fitout was obviously between two-thirds of a million dollars and three-quarters of a million dollars. It would just be nice when one asks departments questions if they could give us the right answer, or at least an answer they agree on. If the Minister could help me in that area I would be most grateful. It would be nice to get the right figure on the record. The other point I want to make relates to a question raised already by Senator Panizza-that is, the remarkable differences in the cost of fitting out senators' and members' electorate offices. The point was very strongly and well made by Senator Newman that the average fitout cost for the offices of Opposition members was about half that of Government members. That is not simply in the ultimate cost involved; it also relates to the sorts of estimates made beforehand. In other words, there was a provision along those lines building in that kind of bias. I do not know whether it is true that, as this would suggest, Government members have a higher expectation-and have that expectation met-of better quality or more costly fitouts. When the Minister responded to Senator Newman he had no effective answer to the point she made. I wonder whether he has one now, particularly in the context that Senator Newman had removed from the figures those of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Howard) and the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). The difference cannot be explained, as I thought it may have been, by the fact that perhaps some Labor members are in the central built up areas of cities and therefore their costs are a lot dearer. That does not seem to be the case. For example, the fitout costs of Senator Devereux were $65,800 and $13,450 for furniture, giving a total of about $80,000. That compares with the cost of, say, Mr Kerr, a Labor member in the centre of Hobart, as I understand it, with a fitout cost of about $49,000 and $8,000 on furniture. Coalition members seem to have a lot lower cost. I have already pointed out that when I moved my office in Wollongong the total fitout cost was $4,300 and $1,133 was spent on furniture, because I was determined that the cost to the Government of that move would be as little as possible. Senator Colston —We will give you a brownie point for that. Senator Robert Ray —Not yet. Senator MICHAEL BAUME —Senator Ray is going to give me a thump over the ear about that soon. However, it seems to me that these differences require some explanation. They do not appear to relate to the area in which the offices are located. I also would like to raise the question of matters being kept from us on the basis of commercial-in-confidence. For example, we are not told what the rental costs of electorate offices are: we are given a range. In the latest year, the lowest rental cost is $44.98 per square metre, rising to a highest figure of $405 per square metre per annum. I do not know how $405 per square metre per annum compares with central business district prices. It seems an awful lot to me. Maybe the Minister can give an indication or whether that is reasonable in the circumstances. Perhaps the Department should let members and senators know the cost consequences of their decisions in determining where abouts they should set up their offices. At least then members of parliament could take a view that they might like to do what they can to save some money. This leads me to another matter: I am interested to note that the National Crime Authority responded to my request about dead rent by saying that its rental arrangements, as I recall it, are commercial-in-confidence. I wonder whether the Department of Administrative Services regards that as an acceptable answer. The National Crime Authority may well like to keep most things close to its chest, but I wonder whether there is any merit in the proposition that its rent is really commercial-in-confidence. I would have thought that any public authority paying rent should be answerable to this chamber. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.40) —I cannot assist Senator Baume on the second issue he raised, as to the differential in provided cost by the Department of Social Security and the Department of Administrative Services, but we will try to find out why and get the reconciliation on the matter. I am informed that the Department of Industrial Relations will be opposing those claims in the Commission. I do not have any further information on that. I would like to make a possible correction to something I said earlier in answer to Senator Short's question on the extent to which the Australian Electoral Commission was consulted on the Australian Capital Territory electoral system. I got a message this morning to say that the Commission has not been consulted, and I am now informed that it may have been. I will have to qualify that answer and get an accurate answer. I have been in this chamber a fair while today, what with the censure motion and other things, so I have not had a chance actually to ring and find out exactly what is going on from that end. I will qualify it now and say that I am in the twilight zone and I will seek to get an accurate answer as soon as possible on that one for the sake of the record, because I think people could draw the wrong conclusion about the Attorney-General's Department, if in fact there was some discussion. It may fall into that technical area I described before, but it may have been more fulsome consultation than that message on my desk led me to believe. Senator Michael Baume raised the question of the National Crime Authority. I cannot help him very much with that. It is one of those sensitive areas and I am not sure whether the very sensitivity sometimes leads it to be overprotective. The question of office rents has been raised, and, of course, it is the old case of lies, lies, and more statistics. I think a whole range of measures have to be taken into account. Let me move to the first thing, fitout costs. Fitout costs do vary, so do rents, and their interrelationship varies. In some cases we have the choice of paying for the fit-out ourselves and having a lower rent, or allowing the owner to do the fitout himself and upping the rent. A classic case was Senator Schacht's office. Let us move to Senator Baume's office, the miserable $4,000. The fitout cost was $20,000-not high, but it was $20,000; $4,000 is a little misleading. However, the cost to the Commonwealth was $4,000, because quite often we make other arrangements. Someone wanted to move Senator Baume, and move him quickly. When we moved him to new premises that person helped with the fitout costs. That is the normal sort of thing. Twenty thousand dollars is not a high figure and he should be commended on it. Senator Michael Baume —It is not on the list. Senator ROBERT RAY —No, it is not on the list because that is the cost to the Commonwealth, which is $4,000. Senator Michael Baume —Are there hidden costs that we do not know about for all the others here, too? Senator ROBERT RAY —No; listen to me. I am saying that sometimes, in some of the lower fitout costs, there are hidden costs because the rent is higher. There is this interrelationship between the two. Take, for example, rent costs in Perth. The average rental cost for an Australian Labor Party (ALP) person in Perth is $120 per square metre per annum. The average cost for a Liberal Party person is $165 per metre per annum. The average Sydney rental between the ALP and the Liberals shows that the Liberal rent is higher by about $1,100; nothing dramatic, but sometimes it is reflected in those. I have taken the general policy in this regard that I think in the past members of parliament have been housed miserably. I am saying that I think they should be housed in a larger, a better equipped and a better style of office, and I do not apologise for that. Senator Puplick —My office is going backwards. Senator ROBERT RAY —Senator Puplick says that his office is going backwards. I will have to inspect his office. But he knows that if he wishes to move out of the central business district we will be able to accommodate him elsewhere. I guess that is the price that he pays for being there, but at least he has a parking spot in that building, which is more than some of the more elevated members of the Parliament have. I would say this to Senator Baume and others: there is no carte blanche in terms of expenditure. I could table the letters from Liberal Party members demanding that I fit out an office and that the rent is $70,000 a year. I could easily do that if we wanted to square off the account, saying that I was being biased, et cetera, et cetera. I could go through all the files and show that some coalition members were greedier than, or as greedy, or however one likes to describe it, as ALP members. I do not wish to do that, but I do wish to say two things. There is no conscious effort on my part as a Minister to look after Labor people better than coalition members or Democrats and there is certainly no politicisation, as was raised here, of those matters. However, it all depends on what figures one uses. I could put the more accurate figures if Ministers were excluded. That would be fair because many offices are combined ministerial suites. Going through the figures, one sees that the average amount for Labor is $36,000 and the average for non-government is $27,000-not the $54,000 and $27,000 which we saw in Senator Newman's Press release. I am not saying that that is a wrong calculation; it is one perspective of the world, using one set of criteria. My calculation, by excluding the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) and Mr Beazley, comes up with figures that are nowhere near as dramatic. Senator Michael Baume —Only one-third worse. Senator ROBERT RAY —One-third worse. Honourable senators have had sent to them all the figures for various Liberals. The amount spent on Senator Bishop was $41,000 and for Mr Howard-he has another office, but for his electorate office-the amount was $47,000. And so it goes on. It is not unusual to see the figures for some coalition members being reasonably higher. I put it on the record here, and I agree, that some have been cheaper than Labor Party members. The amount for Senator Haines was $67,000. Honourable senators opposite are not saying that I have been biased towards Senator Haines, I hope, and have been trying to look after her. I draw the line at certain things. I suppose I could go through the figures in a detailed way. For instance, the question of Mrs Kelly's furniture was raised. I was asked whether she got new furniture just because she moved. The reality is that she kept her old furniture a lot longer because she was moving. It would have been replaced in rotation much earlier had it not been known that she was moving. It was replaced on the basis of her move. In many of these cases one can very easily justify why X and Y cost a certain amount. I do not know that I want to add a lot more to what I have said in response to these questions. I think that I indicated to Senator Panizza earlier why the costs of Minister Beazley's office were reasonably large. Let me say in conclusion that these are just not surface figures; they include the rent paid. Quite often a fitout costs $60,000 and the rent $20,000 a year, or the fitout costs $10,000 and the rent goes to $30,000 a year. They are interrelated. If when the sun comes up tomorrow morning I have not convinced Opposition members and they have convinced every member on this side that I have run a biased policy in favour of their offices, I suppose it will not be the end of the world for me. I rather think that I would get a lot more support on this side of the chamber if that were actually thought, but I have to stand here and say that that is not the case. There is no deliberate bias towards Government members in this respect. Senator MICHAEL BAUME(New South Wales)(8.48) —There are some problems with what Senator Ray has just said. For example, he said that my move cost $20,000. I would be grateful if he could itemise, or advise me, where my move cost 20 grand, and if he would adjust the complete table which we have here to take account of those hidden expenses so that we can judge properly what the expenses were. I have never until now heard any suggestion that my move, in terms of fitout, cost more than $4,300. I would be interested to know whether he is talking about the removal van expenses. As the Minister has said that my move cost $20,000, I ask him to provide comparable figures for everyone else. When I listened to the Minister's claim about the cost of fitting out new offices, I was intrigued that the average amount for Labor Party offices was $36,000, if Ministers' offices were excluded. I have quickly run my eye over the figures and I find that that is absolutely impossible unless the Minister has done two things. Perhaps he has included Mr Snowdon on the list of people to divide the total by, when his expenses are listed as being in progress and there is no addition to the expense. Nevertheless, perhaps his name was put on the list. Or perhaps he has included Mr Lamb, whose fitout cost is nil, presumably because he was doing nothing more than getting some new furniture, just as Senator Austin Lewis had a nil fitout cost, but a furniture expense. There is no way, just eyeballing these totals, that the figure can possibly be as low as $36,000. It does not add up. If the Minister has a new, exciting way of adding up perhaps he could let me know. For example, the figure for Senator Colston is $53,000; for Mrs Darling, $50,800; for Ms Crawford, $34,500, and for Dr Charlesworth, $20,000-certainly well below the average. Senator Beahan is in there as nil. Maybe another nil has been included in the number of people to divide the total by. The average of $36,000 needs explanation. Senator ROBERT RAY(Victoria-Minister for Home Affairs)(8.52) —I did not introduce the question of Senator Baume's fitout in any way to embarrass Senator Baume. I just said that in that case that is why the figure of $4,000 is there, which was the all time stand-out figure. He was the grand finalist until then. In some cases there are hidden figures, but most of the hidden figures go the other way. They suppress the amount of fitout. In general that does not apply to the highest categories. As I say, in some cases in the higher categories we have gone to a full fitout without charging the owner on the basis of a long term drop in rent. That is just as justifiable as doing the reverse. On the question of averaging out, Mr Lamb, for instance, moved and did not have any fitout costs on that occasion. He is in the nether world of wondering whether he has to move again because, as honourable senators would realise, in certain electorates it is almost impossible to get accommodation. That is increasingly true in certain Sydney and Melbourne electorates, where it is almost impossible to get electorate offices near transport. On the question of how one averages it out, I guess, as I said, there are 100 different ways of averaging it out. My way of averaging it out is just as justifiable as Senator Newman's, which came out with double the amount rather than one-third extra. Proposed expenditure agreed to. GROUP F Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories Proposed expenditure, $16,854,000 Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(8.54) —I wish to raise a number of matters regarding the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories in relation to the arts. I take as my starting point a couple of questions which I am sure Senator Richardson will be able to answer. Senator Richardson will recall that at an Estimates committee hearing he indicated to me that the so-called review of museums was just about complete and that the report was to go before Cabinet for consideration. Senator Richardson said, on 14 April, in relation to a question I asked about the consideration of the review of museums, `In all probability it will go before the Cabinet the week after next'. We are now six weeks or so past that point. Therefore, I want to know from the Minister at what stage the final determination of the review of museums is. That leads me to discuss two questions arising from museums. The first is the continuing uncertainty which this Government is engendering in terms of the future of the Museum of Australia. There is already substantial public investment in the Museum of Australia. An important historical collection of artefacts is being held at the Museum. The Museum, to all intents and purposes, has been put into some sort of state of suspended animation. It has no resources for adding to its collection. It has no idea whether it will get additional support in order to complete its building program in whole or in part. It is the repository of a very valuable collection of Aboriginal artefacts which it inherited from the old Institute of Aboriginal Studies. These are not being displayed satisfactorily, as far as public observation is concerned. I believe that the Museum is being treated very shabbily by this Government. It is long past the stage of being a joke. The Museum is entitled to know whether the vendetta which has been run against museums by the Department of Finance will continue. We know that the preferred position of the Department of Finance is that the Museum should not go ahead and that its funding should be severely cut. It has that same view about the Australian National Film and Sound Archive, the Australian National Gallery, the Australian National Maritime Museum and the Australian War Memorial. I believe that the uncertainty needs to be put to rest. This review of museums has become a paralysis for Australia's collecting institutions. It has become a paralysis for the development of museums, particularly national museums throughout Australia. I would be grateful for the Minister's advice on this matter. The next museum issue to which I turn is the scandalous behaviour of the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, in relation to the sacking of the Board of the National Maritime Museum. Let me recall precisely what happened on that occasion. The members of the interim Board of the Museum, in particular, the Chairman, Mr Dix, the Deputy Chairman, Rear-Admiral Robertson, and another member, Miss Kristine Klugman, were dismissed from their positions largely on the basis of a phone call from the Minister's office to Mr Dix informing him that he was not to continue as the Chairman of the Board of the Museum. The other members, Miss Klugman and Rear-Admiral Robertson, were dismissed by receiving a telephone call from a secretary in the Minister's office. This is the way in which people are dealt with by this Government. These people have given public service to be on the Board of the Museum and they are rung up by a secretary in the Minister's office and told that they are not to be on the Board any longer. I give another example of the Government's incompetence. We had introduced in this Parliament in April 1986 the Australian National Maritime Museum Bill. That Bill has still not been dealt with by this Parliament. It has still not been passed. We have had the expenditure on the famous, or infamous, brochure on the National Maritime Museum. Does the Minister remember this? Each copy, comprising the cover and a single piece of paper, cost $72. These were produced at $72 a throw so that the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) could take one to the United States and present it to President Reagan as part of the process of asking for the Americans' bicentennial gift to the National Maritime Museum. Those brochures were printed at $72 a throw, we have had an interim board, we have no legislation, the Board has been dismissed and now, Lord spare us, we have an invitation for a founding day program. This is a matter of some curiosity. We are to have a ceremony to mark not the founding of the museum but the anniversary of the founding of the museum. The invitation states that the ceremony is `to mark the anniversary of the founding of the museum'. It still has no Act of Parliament to underpin it. It has no properly established governing authority in terms of parliamentary legislation, but here we have a nice little card, an invitation which says that Minister Richardson is, at 11.15 on Tuesday, 14 June, to introduce the new Chairman and members of the Museum Council. It is interesting that now, all of a sudden, it is the `Museum Council'. Just a few weeks ago it was an interim council. It is not in fact a council because there is not a piece of legislation establishing it as such. Nevertheless, we have this piece of paper which says that we are going to have all sorts of ceremonies and that Mr Peter Doyle, who is the new Chairman of the Museum Council, will respond to the kind words that Senator Richardson will undoubtedly say about that. It is interesting to note that on the printed invitation are the words `interim council', but that on the piece of paper that goes with it from the museum itself it is not `interim', but the `museum council'. We have had this whole saga in which people have been dismissed on the basis of a telephone call from a secretary. They do not even have the elementary and fundamental courtesy of being told by the Minister, by the Secretary to the Department or by some person in senior authority that they will be fired. We have a secretary of the Minister's office ringing distinguished people such as Rear Admiral Robertson and telling them that their services are being dispensed with. I find that extraordinarily unsatisfactory. The next point to which I wish to draw attention-and Senator Stone was good enough to remind me of this-is that a great deal of this arises from the activities of Mr Punch. Mr Punch is unable to devise an electoral system for the Australian Capital Territory which would otherwise fit in with the Government's referendum proposals. He is, however, sufficient of an expert to direct the Australian National Gallery as to what it should purchase and what it should not purchase. I believe that one of the things which has not been adequately explained and about which I look forward to an explanation from the Minister is the extent to which the Minister has issued other directions in terms of acquisitions of museum collections. Let me say quite clearly that I do not dispute-and I make this point abundantly clear for the Minister's benefit-the right of the Minister in charge of these institutions to give such a direction if in his judgment he believes that the Gallery should not spend $4m to acquire a Picasso. The legislation quite clearly gives him the right to issue such a direction. But when that direction is given, I believe, people are entitled to have a proper explanation as to what it is that the Minister has taken into his judgment. He knows full well that this is not the first government to make such a decision. Prime Minister Fraser in 1976 certainly made a similar ruling in terms of the potential acquisition of a Georges Braque painting. I do not dispute that. But I do dispute that these directions should be given without a proper and coherent explanation of the underpinning philosophy which the Minister is bringing to bear when he substitutes his own judgment for the judgment of the professional experts that he has advising him as far as the museum is concerned. I have a number of other things to say in relation to the Australia Council, and the Design Board in particular, and to the question of the decisions made in relation to the film industry. Having raised those three points, all of which deal with museums and collecting institutions, perhaps that would be an appropriate place to allow the Minister to make his reply. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.05) —Senator Puplick asked a question about the review of the National Museum of Australia. I am reminded that I told Estimates Committee F some five weeks ago that it would be dealt with in the next couple of weeks. This has not been the case. I apologise to Senator Puplick and to the Estimates Committee for that fact. However, the review has been lodged and it will be dealt with by the Government in the next couple of weeks. Senator Puplick —In the fullness of time. Senator RICHARDSON —It has been lodged and it will be dealt with in the next couple of weeks. Obviously, I cannot answer questions that are contained within the review. So, I am not at liberty to answer questions on the Government's attitude towards the future of the National Museum of Australia. I cannot answer questions until the Government has dealt with the submission that the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, has lodged. I will be only too happy to inform the Senate as soon as the Government has made its decision. In respect of the sacking, as Senator Puplick refers to it, of the Board of the Australian National Maritime Museum, it should be noted, of course, that all we were dealing with was an interim council. We were not dealing with an exalted body with a higher status than that. It is simply not true to say that the only notification that the appointment of a number of people was to be ended came from some secretary in the Minister's office. The reality is that each person so affected was written to by the Minister. But because the Minister has a regard not only for the proper form of things but for manners to make sure that the right thing was done by the people concerned, he ensured that his Senior Private Secretary-not just some secretary, but his Senior Private Secretary-rang each person affected to ensure that they had some foreknowledge before they received a letter. Senator Puplick then raised a question about brochures costing $72 each. This matter is really getting very long in the tooth. This is a two-year-old argument which was brought before Estimates committees a long time ago. What he is really talking about are a number of brochures prepared for the Prime Minister's trip to the United States of America for the purpose of raising funds. Given that as a result of the Prime Minister's visit the United States Government saw fit to contribute some $US5m as its bicentennial gift, I would have thought that the cost of the magazines was pretty infinitesimal. When it comes to the argument of the Maritime Museum putting out a Press statement or an invitation-I am not sure which one Senator Puplick was referring to-which referred to me introducing the new interim council members as new council members, the Museum got it wrong. I think I might ring the Museum tomorrow and tell it that it got it wrong. However, I do not think it is a hanging offence, nor will I waste a great deal of my time on it. Rather, when I talk to the Museum tomorrow, I will talk about the exciting future that it has. The last point raised by Senator Puplick concerns the intervention by Minister Punch to stop the purchase of the Picasso. `How dare he!', came the cry from the other side. The reality is, of course, that that is his job. Under the legislation which set up the National Gallery ministerial approval is required for any acquisition that is in excess of $450,000. That being the case, the Gallery quite rightly forwarded this request on to Minister Punch. Minister Punch has to take into account a number of factors. Obviously, the judgment of the council of the National Gallery is one of them. But in the present climate, economic restraint is certainly another. He also must take into account the role of the National Gallery, particularly during our bicentennial year. It is not the practice of Ministers to comment on the purchase price of these objects; but I can say, without putting a price on it, that that one Picasso would have cost more than the entire year's acquisition budget for the National Gallery. I do not believe that the people of Australia, given all the sacrifices they have been asked to endure in the last few years, with the corner being turned, should now be faced with the prospect of a Minister approving a purchase that is absolutely massive. I would have thought that in Minister Punch making the decision he did, all he would have done was increase the confidence that people have in him and in the Government in which he serves. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.11) —Some of the Minister's reply really beggars the imagination. Frankly, even for the Minister, it was a fairly tenuous argument to suggest that the American Government's decision as to what its bicentennial gift to the nation would be, given all the work of Ambassador Lane, all the visits by high-powered American congressional delegations and all the work put in my our Embassy in Washington, was influenced by taking over to President Reagan a four-piece scrap of paper and coming away with a cheque for $5m, or $7m, which is the ultimate price for the American gallery. It is also tenuous to suggest that President Reagan-with all that has been said about the gentleman's intellectual competence and all the other splendid attributes he has-would be so impressed by this tawdry piece of paper as to fork out $5m on behalf of the American Government, given that the commitment was made by the Americans before the Prime Minister's trip to Washington took place. So let us put to one side that absolute nonsense. The Minister goes on to say that I had said, `How dare Mr Punch intervene as far as the Picasso purchase is concerned'. I understand, while the Minister is coy about such things, that the figure we are talking about is around $4m. I made it perfectly clear that I decided that it was the Minister's responsibility. What I said was that one was entitled to a better explanation. Perhaps the explanation is to be found in Robert Haupt's article in the Sydney Morning Herald of 18 May 1988 entitled `Of art and philistinism'. Referring to Mr Punch, he states: He has also failed to learn that great art is always preposterous from the political standpoint. No-one who adheres to a political orthodoxy (Mr Punch is an adherent of the NSW Labor Party Right) can easily comprehend something as revolutionary as Cubism. Stalin never got to grips with it, and one feels that Graham Richardson is only pretending to understand. I think the Minister's explanation tonight simply indicates the extent to which Mr Haupt is not only a good political correspondent but an extremely perceptive art critic as well. The final point, telling us that the purchase of the Picasso for $4m cannot go ahead because this is a time of economic restraint-with a Budget that provides $35m for a series of referendum proposals, after we have spent $6m for a Constitutional Commission and not even waited for its report, then to find that the Government cannot even get right the questions it is going to put forward in the $35m referendum-really is stretching matters a fair way. So let us go instead to another of Mr Punch's enormous successes; that is, winding up the Designs Board of the Australia Council. We know from discussions which have taken place that, just like the electoral system for the Australian Capital Territory, it was not quite meant to happen this way. We know from the discussions which took place between Mr Andrews and Senator Button and, indeed, the discussions which took place between Mr Andrews and Senator Richardson, which Senator Richardson confirmed the other day, that Mr Andrews was advised that no further decisions would be taken without consultation. Senator Button had indicated his very strong support for the Designs Board which is a small but very important part of the Australia Council-because it deals with the issues of industrial design and training of designers and has a real economic benefit back to the community. All of a sudden Mr Punch has determined that the Designs Board will be wound up as from 1 July 1988. We know that Senator Button is pretty ropeable about all of this. We know that Senator Richardson is obligated to defend both his junior Minister and his factional colleague in this particular matter, but the destruction of the Designs Board of the Australia Council and its replacement with two committees, neither of which in their new form will be adequate to do the job, I think is an absolute disgrace. The issue of the Bulletin of 31 May 1988 records: Just as the importance of design is being recognised in cultural and commercial sectors of Australian society, Gary Punch, the junior Minister with responsibility for the federal Arts portfolio, has pulled the rug from under the design community. It seems that the battle to squeeze the Design Board out of the Australia Council is all but over. Urged on by council chairman Professor Donald Horne, Punch has countermanded decisions made by his boss, Senator Graham Richardson, and incurred the displeasure of Industry Minister John Button. We know Mr Cohen refused Professor Horne's demands for widening the Designs Board, and rightly so. We know that Professor Horne has some very eclectic views about the operations of the Australia Council. In a speech which he gave as the inaugural lecture for the Institute for Cultural Policy Studies at Griffith University on 7 October 1987, Professor Horne stated: The Australia Council can sometimes look a power-hungry character. So let me say, first, that there are some things I would like the Australia Council to get rid of so that it might concentrate entirely on new arts, innovative arts. Under those circumstances, it would seem to be a bit funny not having experimental film. He went on to make another couple of comments. We have seen that he has managed to achieve getting rid of the Designs Board which is of great importance and ought to be preserved, but he has not been successful in continuing his association with what he called experimental film because the Australia Council Amendment Act, which is currently before the House of Representatives and which we will not debate until the next session, specifically removes film from the definition of art under the Australia Council legislation. So we find that what Professor Horne was really on about and what he has persuaded Mr Punch to be on about was getting rid of that part of the Australia Council's operations which had a real and significant economic impact on the way in which design, the promotion of design, the study of design and the effective use of design in productive industry in Australia could be advanced. This is simply yet another indication of the incapacity of the Government actually to manage as far as the arts community is concerned. I am going to make some final remarks in terms of asking the Minister some questions in relation to the new plan for the film industry. As I understand it, the $70m allocated towards the film industry requires that within the overall-I stress that-that $70m is somehow dependent upon attracting a 30 per cent participation in the overall scheme from private sector funding. In other words, for the whole of the $70m to be expended, in the overall there is a requirement that there be some 30 per cent, some $21m, raised within the private sector. What I want the Minister to address his mind to in relation to this matter is the extent to which that is required on a project by project basis. In other words, is it the Government's intention to have some films funded in a way which will in fact allow 100 per cent allocation of funds from the Film Finance Corporation so that at the beginning of each year, for example, it will be possible for a group with a project, without any indication that it has available to it private sector finance, to get substantially more than a 70 per cent component from the Corporation? If that is the case it will have implications for the amount of money that can be raised by those who come later in the year, later in the queue, because the overall expenditure of $70m requires that 30 per cent commitment by the private sector before it is all fundamentally put together. The last point I raise with the Minister is what representations, if any, he has made to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) or to the Minister for Finance (Senator Walsh) regarding the two sales tax rulings-sales tax ruling No. 2407 on video production, and the other ruling on sound recordings-which relate to the imposition of the additional 20 per cent sales tax on production and post-production costs in certain video and sound recordings. I would be grateful if the Minister would indicate what representations he has made or what the current thinking of the Government is on that matter. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.21) —The first thing I would like to point out to Senator Puplick is that he has the title wrong. It is not the Designs Board; it is the Design Board. If the honourable senator is going to ask questions about something, he should at least find out the name before he speaks. Senator Michael Baume —Pathetic! Senator RICHARDSON —It is pathetic; I agree. Senator Baume and I have at last found something in common-after only five years here together. It is pathetic if Senator Puplick does not know that the Design Board is not the Designs Board. Senator Puplick has created an impression by reading some articles from the newspapers. Just as I would not accept some of the articles that I have seen in the papers of recent times about Senator Puplick, I am sure he would not believe everything he reads in the papers either. We are told in some article that Gary Punch has incurred my displeasure and the displeasure of Senator Button, and in fact countermanded our instructions. Nothing could be further from the truth. As I said in an answer I gave in this place a couple of weeks ago on the Design Board, the Government always had as its base line the maintenance of a design function. The argument was always about where this would best be located. Of course that is a complex argument and the reason there were discussions between Senator Button and me on this issue was that we had to work out whether design, much of which is industrial design, was best located within the portfolio administered by Senator Button or within the arts portfolio with the Australia Council. As a result of those discussions it was determined that it would be best if the design function were maintained within the Australia Council. That being the case, there have been extensive consultations with representatives of the Design Board and the Australia Council on an appropriate future for the Design Board. As a consequence of that the Chairman of the Australia Council, Donald Horne, together with the former Chairman of the Design Board, Mr Andrews, will be presenting to the Australia Council in the next couple of days a joint proposal for the future functions of the Design Board. As I pointed out in the Senate a couple of weeks ago, I believe that the direction in which this matter is heading is towards the formation of a committee within the Australia Council to deal with the design function. Hopefully that matter will be resolved by the Australia Council in the next few days. Remember that it has to be resolved by the Australia Council because, contrary to what Senator Puplick said, the Minister does not have the power to direct the Australia Council to abolish the Design Board. It has to be a decision taken by the Australia Council itself. Naturally, in an issue of this kind, the Minister is entitled to put his views, and properly put them; and he did so. But it is going to be, in the end, a decision for the Australia Council. Certainly, Senator Button and I are not upset at the outcome of the discussions. I was asked about the film industry. We are talking about this magic figure of 30 per cent. That is a goal that we would hope we can achieve on every occasion. If we cannot, of course, the reality is that we would look to significant private funding. That will be the benchmark for the new Film Corporation to look to. If we are talking about significant private funding, no film will be 100 per cent funded by the Australian Film Corporation. I think I can put Senator Puplick's mind at rest on that. In terms of the representations that we have made to the Treasurer (Mr Keating) on the question of the sales tax rulings, which were also I think the subject of a question here some time back, the status quo is remaining while the situation is sorted out. The industry has been invited to make further submissions on the issue, and it is doing so. When this matter has been resolved-and no harm is being done as long as the status quo is being maintained-I will be only too happy to inform this chamber. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.27) —I do not propose to allow the Minister to get away with making a comment that the abolition of the Design Board is a matter for the Australia Council and not a matter for the Minister. I read from Mr Punch's letter addressed to Professor Horne and dated 31 March 1988: In view of this and the need to resolve the matter before the beginning of the next financial year, I propose to revoke the establishment of the Design Board under Section 20 of the Australia Council Act with effect from 1 July 1988. That is not a determination of the Australia Council; that is a letter from the Minister addressed to Professor Horne in which he says, as Minister, `I propose to revoke the establishment of the Design Board under Section 20 of the Australia Council Act'. For the Minister to say in the cut and thrust that it is not a decision ultimately made by the Minister but is a decision of the Australia Council is not to deal fairly with this chamber in terms of answering questions in the Estimates debate. I am still anxious to clarify what it is that will technically or legally prevent the Film Finance Corporation from deciding to invest 100 per cent of the cost of making a film. As I understand the purport of the May statement-and there is no legislation, as I understand, which is necessary to give effect to the arrangement-what was announced was that there would be a Film Finance Corporation; that it would have an allocation in this first year of $70m; and that it would be expected that `overall'-and that is the word I think used in the May statement and in the supporting papers-it would be required to attract a 30 per cent investment from the private sector. The Minister said that there was no magic figure of 30 per cent to achieve on every occasion but then went on to say that there would be no films in which the Finance Corporation would invest 100 per cent. Can he indicate whether that is to be by way of ministerial direction to the Film Finance Corporation or whether there will be some legislative underpinning of that? It is clear that none of the statements that have been put out on this package make that determination clear. I am anxious to understand that, particularly in relation to the questions which will arise if we get to debate the amendments to the Australian Film Commission Act which will have a bearing, in terms of the Opposition's view on that matter, as to the operations of the Film Finance Corporation. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.30) —I would have to say that, whether or not we get to debate that Act, Senator Puplick will probably have more bearing on it than I would. The sooner we can get on with our business, the sooner we can debate it, and I am anxious to do so. I take the second part of his question first, that is, who will determine how much is going to be required from the private sector in the funding of any film. The new corporation or company that is set up will decide this. It is not a case of ministerial direction, although I can only repeat that it is not the case that we would be permitting a figure of nought, because that obviously does not amount to significant private funding. Just where the figure will come down, we will have to wait and see when we have set up the new company and it has made its decisions. On the question of the Design Board, it is obvious that the Minister will not take action without the advice of the Australia Council. He will be receiving that advice in the next few days, and I am only too glad that it is finally getting around to giving us that result. It has taken a long time, a lot of discussion, and a great deal of consultation, and it was indeed the consultation that the honourable senator was querying in the first place. Minister Punch has, of course, as usual, done the right thing. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.31) —Could the Minister tell me the cost of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.31) —I will have to seek advice on that. I should be able to tell the honourable senator in a few moments as I have someone checking the final figures. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.32) —I will go on with a few other questions while that is being done. Reports in the paper tell us that the forestry is not listed for debate at the Australian Labor Party conference-nor is uranium, nor is privatisation, indeed nor is anything very controversial as far as I can see. We have also been told that the Australian Timber Workers Union, the industry, local government, the State Government and the Trades and Labor Council of Tasmania have all come out very clearly seeking the Government's decision on the Helsham inquiry. Does the Minister stick by the fact that he will not make any announcement until after the Labor Party conference? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.33) —The Helsham report, as Senator Walters would be well aware, is not exactly a thin document. It is not only weighty in terms of its physical state; it is also weighty in terms of the decisions which it asks the Government to make. I would not treat the report lightly enough as to rush in and make a decision without mature consideration. Indeed, there are still three more groups, two from forestry and one environmental, that are seeking to see me over the next three days to make their representations on it; and naturally enough, I am only happy to receive them. The fact that I have not yet made a recommendation to the Government has nought to do with the Australian Labor Party (ALP) conference being on next week, but everything to do with making sure that sufficient time is given to ensure that we can reach the right decision. That being the case, I would anticipate a recommendation being made very shortly. Senator Puplick —We all hope there will be one shortly. Senator RICHARDSON —It has to be very shortly under the relevant Act, but we have to make a decision within the next few weeks, and we shall. The question of what gets debated at the conference next week is hardly the subject we are debating tonight. These are appropriations, and this is not the ALP conference. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.35) —As the Minister has indicated in a roundabout fashion, he is restricted in time by the expiry date of the moratorium on logging. Can he tell the Committee when he first received this weighty document that needs so much consideration before he can make a decision? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.35) —I received it on the evening of Friday, the sixth. I have just asked someone to check that. I do not necessarily remember all of my diary entries. I am pretty sure that I got it on the Friday night at Sydney Airport. I think he was due to give it to me on the Sunday. Earlier Senator Walters asked me about the total cost of the inquiry. The total costs to the Commonwealth are $1,751,000 for the inquiry; $20,000 for travel associated with it; $340,000 for grants to organisations making submissions; and $70,000 for legal costs, making a total of $2,181,000. Senator MacGibbon —It is just taxpayers' money. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.36) —As I understand it, we have spent $2,181,000 of taxpayers' money on the Helsham report, which the Minister has had for nearly a month-24 days or more-and about which he cannot make up his mind. According to news reports, he has said that he needs public opinion to help him make up his mind. The fact that the Government spent $6m of taxpayers' money on the Constitutional Commission and did not wait for its final report is not surprising in light of the fact that the Minister has spent $2,181,000 on the Helsham report and needs the public to tell him how he should make up his mind. Is the Minister at all aware of the damage he is doing to the Tasmanian timber industry by his vacillating? Is he at all aware that the industry is losing confidence, or is it his aim for that to occur? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.38) —I noted Senator MacGibbon's interjection that it is just other people's money. The reality is that the $2m was spent in examining an issue that is of great importance to many people. I do not regret that. It is better that we try to make our decisions from as great a knowledge base as possible. As far as I am concerned, if that needs to be done on any other occasion, we shall do so. Senator Stone —You are glad that he is spending other people's money in those circumstances. Senator RICHARDSON —No. I believe that the people of Tasmania would rather the issues be canvassed, and we made sure that that opportunity was there. Senator Parer —You didn't do it in north Queensland. Senator RICHARDSON —We can debate north Queensland tonight; I am always happy to do that. Senator MacGibbon —You just jumped off the precipice. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order! Senator RICHARDSON —Thank you, Mr Temporary Chairman. I need some help. Senator MacGibbon —He is trying to snow us. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —No, he is not. He is trying to put forward his contribution. Senator RICHARDSON —I am told that I need public opinion to help me make up my mind. Why is it that after 24 days I have not done so? I can only refer to an answer I gave earlier this evening, that is, that it is a weighty report and it requires and merits proper consideration. That is what we are giving it. Also, I think it would be highly inappropriate for the Government to make a decision on the Helsham report when not all sections of the industry have had an opportunity to present to us their views on it. That is not an appropriate way to deal with such reports. As far as I can recall, given that logging has ceased in Tasmania and does not go on during the winter, in terms of affecting the industry on a day to day basis we have until October. As to the future confidence of the industry, what the Government is about with Senator Cook and the forestry accord is ensuring a future for the industry and trying to make sure that we do not have to have the arguments we have had over the last few years, forest by forest. Rather, we can have an overall plan which will allow industry to have the confidence to invest and the conservation movement to know which Australian forests will be preserved for all time. Senator Walters —Will the Minister tell me how many representations by industry he has had? Senator RICHARDSON —I do not have my diary with me to enable me to tell Senator Walters about all the appointments or telephone calls. All the major forestry organisations have made representations. A number of companies have made representations individually. The delegation I saw the other night included represenatives of local government and the trade unions. There have been representations by a great many companies, unions and industry organisations. But I do not have a list of all my appointments. It is not customary to provide them, is it? Senator Walters —Will the Minister tell me how many more industries he is waiting on representations from before he makes the final weighty decision? Senator RICHARDSON —I answered that earlier. I said that there were two appointments from forestry groups and one from an environmental group to go. I would have liked to have been at the appointment with the unions this morning but could not because of other matters that came up during the day that required my attention this morning prior to Question Time. I am seeing, as an example, the National Forestry Industry Association (NFIA) tomorrow. So I am seeing all of the appropriate industry groups. I am doing, hopefully, what I am paid to do. Senator Walters —Will the Minister name the industries that he is yet to have representations from? Senator RICHARDSON —I have just said that I will see the National Forestry Industry Association tomorrow. I think it is tomorrow. I am not going to have that checked. If it is not tomorrow, it is the day after. That will have to do Senator Walters. One company wants to see me this week. I forget its name. Several environment groups want to see me on Thursday, but I am going to see them as one group rather than separately, which is why I will be having three appointments and not more. Is this really interesting? Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.43) —The Minister has been quoted as saying-I would like him to verify this-that the Commonwealth will not be fettered by any recommendation by the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests and will be guided by public opinion. Is that correct? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.43) —No, it is not correct. The main comment that I have made about the Helsham inquiry is that I will not comment on it. In response to a question from Senator Archer, which I think was asked last year, I said that the Government would not be bound by any or all of the Helsham inquiry's recommendations, although we regarded it as a competent team, and obviously its recommendations would have great weight. I have subsequently said that I will not comment on the result of the inquiry until the Government has made its decision, and I stand by that. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(9.44) —The Australian Timber Workers Union, the Trades and Labour Council, the industry, local government and the State Government of Tasmania, are all lobbying the Minister extremely hard to accept the recommendations of the Helsham inquiry. The conservationists are the only group lobbying the Minister in the opposite direction. The Minister now has public opinion clearly before him. Does he still insist on waiting until after the National Conference of the Australian Labor Party. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.44) —I have nothing to add to the 17 answers I have just given. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.44) —I want to ask the Minister about repudiation of a promise of his predecessor. In answer to Senator Walters a moment ago, the Minister said that the Government would not be bound by the results of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. On 18 March 1987, Mr Cohen, the Minister's predecessor, late and unlamented perhaps, said, on the legislation establishing the inquiry-I quote Mr Cohen's words from the Hansard: We are setting up this inquiry to establish fundamentally which of these propositions- that is, the conservationist proposition and the timber industry proposition- is true and we will accept the inquiry's findings. If the timber industry and the Government- referring to the Government of Tasmania- are proved to be right, there will be a simple answer. When Mr Cohen established this inquiry Mr Cohen said these words to the Parliament, `We will accept the inquiry's findings'. Those words appear in the Hansard of 18 March 1987. Is the Minister telling me that he accepted the inquiry's findings by taking receipt of the bulky document at Sydney Airport on some Friday night? Will he attempt to tell me that that constitutes accepting the inquiry's findings, or is he telling me that the statement that Mr Cohen made to the Parliament on the establishment of the Helsham inquiry is, as some other late lamented politician said, no longer operative? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.46) —It is probably not the world's best kept secret that Mr Cohen and I have had some recent disagreements. I think we are about to have another one. All I can say is that last year when I made the statement that the Government would not be bound by any or all of the recommendations of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests I did so on the basis-I do not have a copy of the Hansard with me-that it was never customary for governments to accept in advance the recommendations of an inquiry. I recall that in the Fraser Government days when Malcolm Fraser got an inquiry result that attacked Mr Nixon he attacked the royal commissioner rather than accept the advice of the commissioner. If Mr Cohen said the words which Senator Puplick quoted from Hansard-I have no reason to dispute what Senator Puplick said-in my view Mr Cohen was wrong. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.47) —How can Mr Cohen be wrong in concluding a second reading speech? Is it not a fact that a Minister's speech is a formal statement on behalf of the Government and the Cabinet as to the Government's precise intentions? I am referring to a second reading speech, not some off the cuff comment. It is not a comment by the Minister on his own recognisance. I am referring to the second reading debate on the legislation which established the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. How can it possibly be wrong in the sense of being a formal statement, a commitment by a government in a second reading speech? Does the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) mean to tell me, his personal differences with Mr Cohen notwithstanding, that a Minister's speech given on behalf of a government of which he was a member-not the Ministry but a government of which he was a member-can be rendered inoperative on the basis of saying, `The Minister was wrong', when those second reading speeches are now capable of being taken into account by the courts in looking at their interpretation of legislation? The Government has introduced and we have supported legislation which says that the courts may have regard to the the second reading speeches in seeking to interpret an Act of parliament because the second reading debate is the formal statement of what the Government intends that the legislation shall be all about. I have quoted from the second reading debate on the legislation which established the Helsham inquiry. It is beyond belief for the Minister to say that that second reading speech is wrong and that the commitment given on the part of the Government in that second reading speech is now simply to be ignored. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.49) —All I can say to Senator Puplick is: If what I have said was so terrible why was it not so terrible when I said it seven months ago? Why was it not terrible when the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) said it several months ago in the House of Representatives? The truth is that there is obviously a difference of opinion between former Minister Cohen and me and the Prime Minister and me on this question. There has been an election since Mr Cohen made his statement. As far as I am concerned, I have disagreed with Mr Cohen's statement not because of any personal feud. That would be difficult, given that I had not had those words quoted to me until tonight, and neither had anyone else. Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(9.50) —The Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) the other day went to great pains, when I raised the question of the endangered species unit within his Department, to say to us, `When this Government gives a commitment it honours that commitment; it is bound by that commitment. We are paying goodness knows how much not to have a gold tax during the course of this Parliament because we gave a commitment that we would not'. We have to weigh up with Senator Richardson and the Government whether, in fact, the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests is in the same category as the gold tax or whether it is in the same category as the capital gains tax. That is to say, there has been an intervening election somewhere along the line and, as a result, everything said before an election, unless it is repeated after an election, cannot possibly be regarded as binding on the same Prime Minister and the same Government that gave the commitment to begin with. The Acts Interpretation Act provides, and this Parliament has provided, that in working out what an Act of parliament means the court shall have regard to a second reading debate because that is a complete interpretation of what the Government intends the Act to do or to achieve. The Act was intended-and let us leave Mr Cohen out of it for a moment-by the Hawke Labor Government to be the method by which the dispute over the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests of Tasmania was to be resolved. It was not simply to add to the mishmash of information, but to resolve the dispute. Mr Cohen said, when he introduced the legislation, that this was an inquiry to resolve difficult questions. It was going to resolve them on the basis of all of this expertise and expert evidence on which this $2.18m has now been expended, and on the basis of accepting the inquiry's findings. I do not intend to allow myself to be distracted by the nevertheless attractive Senator Haines waving her flower around on this occasion-as distinct from her usual practice of sitting with it in her teeth-in order to draw attention to herself, because the issue is an extremely important one. The position has been put to us by Senator Richardson. Now that the tired and emotional Australian Democrats have withdrawn, I presume that we can continue with the point of substance, which is the commitment given by the Hawke Labor Government, when the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests (Commission of Inquiry) Act passed through this Parliament, that it would be bound by the inquiry's findings. Mr Cohen did not say, `I will accept the inquiry's findings'; he said, `We will accept the inquiry's findings'. He was speaking on behalf of the Hawke Labor Government. Senator Richardson is now saying that the Hawke Labor Government will not be bound by the promise and commitment which it gave on 18 March 1987 when it passed this legislation. I understand entirely what Senator Richardson is saying. I understand entirely the decision which Senator Richardson has made in terms of this particular matter-that he will not be bound by the inquiry. I want to make it abundantly clear on the record that this is a total repudiation of the commitment and undertaking given by the Government when the Helsham inquiry legislation was brought before the Parliament for its initial passage. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.55) —It should be remembered that the Acts Interpretation Act contains references to help the courts to interpret legislation. There has been no argument whatsoever about the legislation which set up the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. That legislation will expire in a few weeks time. What I said was that no government can commit itself in advance to accept any or all of the recommendations of an inquiry. I stand by that statement. Of course, the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) reiterated that in the House of Representatives in the last few months. I was asked how we differentiate between this inquiry and the gold tax. The reality is that the gold tax has not yet started; the Helsham report is finished and has been handed in. I am then told by those opposite what a shocking thing it is that the Government has changed its mind. Senator Puplick is one of the experts in the field of changing one's mind. Is it not the case that this is the same senator who told us last July about the wonderful values of the World Heritage and who sought last week to tear them down? Is it not the same senator who said he would resign if he could not get the Liberal Party to make a greener decision? When will he honour that commitment? Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.56) —Did the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) say last week that if the Government had made an undertaking in respect of the endangered species unit, it could be counted upon to honour it? Did he say it or did he not? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.57) —I certainly did. Senator Archer —Right. Senator RICHARDSON —Excuse me, Senator Archer-if I may finish my answer. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Morris) —Order, Senator Archer! The Minister is on his feet. Senator RICHARDSON —I certainly did say that. As I recall, in the Government's policy speech delivered late June by the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke)-- Senator Walters —Before the election. Senator RICHARDSON —Before the election-and on his way to winning his third election in succession-he referred to the endangered species unit. I have said that the Government will honour that promise. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.57) —Just so that we can clear the record up I ask: Does the Minister acknowledge that the Government, through him, said that it would accept the decision of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.58) —I have already said that I acknowledge that Senator Puplick would not misquote the Hansard record. Senator Archer —Are we to understand that we can take notice of the promises of the Government, on any subject? Senator RICHARDSON —This Government has a magnificent record of honouring its promises-a record that any government since Federation would be proud of. Senator ARCHER(Tasmania)(9.58) —I would just like to draw the attention of the packed Press gallery to the fact that the Government can be relied upon to make class A promises and class B promises. What does this mean as far as the Government is concerned? Does it mean that anybody in the community can take any notice of what this Government tells him? What is an undertaking from this Government worth? I ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) to reconsider the position on the basis of what has happened in regard to all of the fancy undertakings that he claims the Government can give and maintain, when clearly what he is saying to us is, `Yes, you can trust the Government. We will honour every promise we feel inclined to honour, but the rest of them can go by the board'. It all depends on who makes the promises, where they are made and when they are made as to whether they are authentic or not. Is that what the Minister is trying to tell us? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(9.59) —I would not seek to belabour this point very much-- Senator Archer —The answer is yes. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order, Senator Archer! The Minister is on his feet trying to answer your question to the best of his ability. Senator RICHARDSON —I want to point out to Senator Archer that there are no precedents of governments over the years saying in advance that they will adopt reports before they see them. In my view, if a government has done that in the past, it was wrong to do so. But I can say-and I hope that honourable senators have not misinterpreted anything that I have said earlier-that I have never said that I would not recommend the adoption of the Helsham report. It is simply not true to say that in some way we have rejected it. At this stage of the game the Government has yet to make a decision, and it is considering the report. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(10.00) —Did you-did the Government-appoint the people on the Helsham inquiry? Senator Richardson —I am glad Senator Walters changed it from `you' to `the Government'. I believe they were Government appointments. Senator WALTERS —So you appointed the people, as a government? Senator Richardson —No, I did not, the Government did. Senator WALTERS —Come on; do not be so stupid. You are the Minister. So you as the Government appointed the people to the Helsham inquiry. You set it up; you spent over $2m of taxpayers' money, and now you say you will not be fettered by its recommendations. That is a completely irresponsible attitude for any person using taxpayers' money. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.01) —I can recall when a royal commission recommended 2:1 to Malcolm Fraser's Government that oil drilling on the Great Barrier Reef should be permitted. The Fraser Government, rightly, rejected the recommendations of the royal commission. It rejected the recommendations of a number of royal commissions. I did not hear Senator Walters whinge at that point. The only other thing to say on this matter-I would have thought she understood this, but apparently she did not-is that I was not the Minister who made the decision or the recommendations. I was at the time a humble backbencher. Those appointments were made during the second Hawke Government. This is the third Hawke Government. I have yet to make appointments of that kind. Senator PARER(Queensland)(10.02) —I would like to raise briefly the matter of uranium, which affects the portfolio of the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). Before doing so, I will just put the matter into perspective because the chaos that surrounds this Government on uranium is indicative of the chaos of the Government as a whole. Australian uranium is used for the generation of electricity. Senator Sanders —And the production of bombs. Senator PARER —I am glad that Senator Sanders interjects because that is the misinformation that is spread throughout Australia by certain teachers, the Australian Democrats and the nuclear disarmers-that uranium from Australia is used for making bombs. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Minister and the Government know that, yet that misinformation is spread. In today's Australian Financial Review David Clarke wonders-and I wonder-whether our competitors in Canada do not finance the Senator Vallentines, the Peter Garretts and the Democrats. Senator Sanders —Would that they were. Senator PARER —Is Senator Sanders sure that they do not finance him in his efforts? Senator Sanders —I would know. Senator PARER —I do not think Senator Sanders would. Senator Sanders —I drive a 1972 Toyota. What do you drive? Senator PARER —They spread misinformation that Australian uranium is used for bombs. It is not used for bombs; it is used for generating electricity. Senator Sanders —Can you prove it? Senator PARER —I will come to that. Let us put the matter into perspective. There are various ways of generating electricity. One is by oil and gas. To use oil-and a fair bit of oil is used for generating electricity-is equivalent to throwing mahogany into the fireplace. We are aware that there is going to be a shortage of liquid fuels. They must be conserved for their unique uses-to fuel Senator Sanders's 1972 Toyota, unless he goes back to the Flintstone days and pedals it. Hydro-power is another method of generating electricity but the sources for that are limited. This Government stopped the use of hydro-power in Tasmania-a very cheap way of generating electricity. We have renewable resources and efforts are going on in various areas to promote them. I suppose that some time down the track they will be commercially viable. Then we have coal, which is a major export from Australia. It has two uses: firstly, it is used for the generation of electricity and, secondly, it is used in the production of steel. To actually burn coking coal in a power station is again equivalent to wasting a very scarce resource. The only major use of uranium is to generate electricity. We must bear in mind that we have a balance of payments problem in this country. Almost month by month our balance of payments deficit runs at something like $1 billion, so over a year we increase our foreign balance of payments deficit by something in the order of $11 billion. We are fortunate in this country to be fairly rich in resources, but in some areas we have missed the boat. For example, our iron ore and steel industries are very important to Australia and to our balance of payments and yet we missed out on the opportunity to get into major steel mills, the jumbo mills, as described in the mid-1970s. We nearly missed the boat on bauxite and its conversion to aluminium through the smelters. In fact, the Australian Labor Party, the Government of Victoria and the militant trade unions went around the countryside-I suppose Senator Sanders and his group were doing the same thing-saying, `Stop what is going on in Victoria. We are exporting canned electricity'. They nearly got away with it at enormous cost to the people of Australia and to the people of Victoria. Thank God they did not because it is a resource to which we have put enormous value added. Now we come to the last great resource that we have in this country, which is uranium. As I mentioned earlier, uranium is a valuable energy producing resource. The controlled heat generated from the chain reaction is used to convert water to steam which, in turn, spins turbines and produces electricity. That is the use of Australian uranium. Every sane person on the other side of the chamber knows that. Yet where do we stand? I would like to get the Government's view and the Minister's view on this. Recently Senator Button directed that a paper be prepared. It recommends that Australia should allow additional exports to meet the growing market demand-and it is a growing market demand. Honourable senators should bear in mind that we have something like three times the uranium resources of Canada and twice the resources of South Africa and yet the Canadians produce three times as much uranium as we do in Australia. What stupidity this is with our balance of payments position the way it is. Everyone knows that to get this country back on track we must either export more or improve our import replacement position, thus importing less. The question I want to ask is: Where do we stand? Australia is in chaos; it is in a mess. I asked Senator Cook a number of questions in recent times. I said, `What are you going to do? Are you going to stick to this ludicrous three mines policy? Are you going to get into uranium enrichment?' Anyone who has done an estimate on these figures will know that if we do not we are going to forfeit an estimated $1 billion a year. Honourable senators should bear in mind that if we do get into uranium enrichment we have a better control on the end product-I am sure that will please Senator Sanders-but it will also add something in the order of $1 billion to our exports. As I said, Senator Button had a paper prepared. The recommendation, as I understand it, was to meet the growing market demand and was that preference should be given to new operators prepared to work towards adding maximum value to the ore. What he means by that is: Let us get into uranium enrichment, let us get into the value added. Let me tell the Minister that if we do not do that the uranium enrichment industries in countries overseas will become so entrenched that it will be too late and yet again we will have missed the bus. The question I am asking is: Where on earth do we stand? Senator Richardson, the Minister at the table, belongs to the Right. I understand from reports that the Right supports the removal of the silly three-mine policy and that it supports, sensibly, the value added principle. We have also Senator Cook, a Western Australian member of the Centre Left faction, formerly a strong opponent of uranium mining. He is like Senator Richardson. He is a born-again; he is having second thoughts. The trouble with Senator Cook is that he has loyalties to the people who put him in as a Minister. So he is in a difficult position. We have Senator Collins, a very sensible senator from the Northern Territory who has strongly put the same point of view-not the insane Left view, not the insanities of the Nuclear Disarmament Party or the insanities of Senator Sanders. He recognises the facts. Also he is representing his own constituency, which includes members of the Koongarra Aboriginal community, who I understand are going down to the Australian Labor Party National Conference in Tasmania to argue this very point: Why is the Government doing this Aboriginal community out of the opportunity to earn some money for its tribal people? It is a good question. Mr Hogg says, `Let's cool it, let's not make a decision; it is too hard'. We have to make a decision because, as I said, if we do not do so now it will be too late. I understand the National President of the Labor Party, Mr Bannon, has said today that he supports three mines. Of course he does. He has one in South Australia. Senator Collins does not have the extra one he wants in the Northern Territory. Mr Hogg is blaming a wealthy lobby group for the push to change the policy. But that is an easy way out, a cop-out. We are looking for hard decisions. The Centre Left is now split on the uranium issue. Senator Cook has been born again. He now understands the importance of his ministerial position. His colleague Mr Gordon Bilney has come out with a paper saying the policy should be opened up. We do now know where we are, and hence I ask the Minister where the Government stands on this issue. Is it going to make a decision, or is it going to procrastinate for such a length of time that when a decision is made it will be too late? Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.13) —I too would like to ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) where the Government stands on the uranium issue. As has been ably pointed out by my colleague Senator Parer, we stand on different sides in this matter. Basically Senator Parer was using the dope pusher argument, that we should sell something overseas to make money. We could push heroin and make a lot of money. We could really do a lot of good with our heroin. If Senator Parer is interested only in money, we could push not only heroin but also cocaine and crack. We could push a whole lot of things which would not be as dangerous as uranium, because of course uranium will pollute and poison this earth for 250,000 years. The troglodytes on my right feel that that is nothing to worry about. They just want to make a quick buck for their friends, their cronies and their masters in the multinationals-a quick buck in the next half hour, half year or 10 years or whatever. They do not care about the future; they do not care about what the kids will have to put up with. They do not care at all. We have heard how wonderful it would be for Australia if we had enrichment facilities, and how this would somehow control uranium overseas. Senator Parer —Sure. Senator SANDERS —Senator Parer, in saying `sure', is suggesting that we cannot control our uranium overseas at the moment. Is that correct? Senator Parer —It would be better control. Senator SANDERS —He says we would have better control of uranium. In fact, we have no control over our uranium overseas. The Minister for Primary Industries and Energy, John Kerin, has said that there is no way of knowing, no way of guaranteeing, that our uranium-the molecules, the uranium that is actually mined as yellowcake from Ranger-does not end up in French bombs. There is no way of guaranteeing this because it goes through the same enrichment facilities in France as are used for military purposes. There is no way of guaranteeing that this does not happen. What happens if there is enrichment in Australia? Sure, we would make a few more bucks. We would be selling a little higher grade of dope; that is all we would be doing-making a few more bucks. But we still would not know about the end use unless we guarded the material day and night and allowed no flag or origin swaps-none of the hanky-panky that goes on in Euratom or anywhere else in the world. There is no way-- Senator Parer —Whose payroll are you on? Senator SANDERS —I am on the payroll of the unborn. I am worrying about the future. Honourable senators opposite laugh because they do not care about the future. They care about present profits. Their whole argument is based on present profits. That is what is wrong with that side of the chamber. The Government, to its eternal credit, occasionally will think about the future. Senator Richardson thinks about the future when he talks about World Heritage. Honourable senators on the Opposition side, including Senator Puplick, our once staunch greenie supporter, are interested only in instantaneous profits. We have also heard about how wonderful the burning or uranium is because it does not pollute. Honourable senators should talk to the people of Chernobyl, to the people around Three Mile Island and to the people around Windscale. They should talk to the people around the world who have suffered from nuclear power. There are no peaceful uses for nuclear power, for uranium. What about the greenhouse effect? We have heard that we should not burn coal because it adds to the greenhouse effect with carbon dioxide. What about nuclear power? As Senator Parer said, they use nuclear power to heat water. This heat adds to the atmospheric heat and it is adding to the greenhouse effect. Senator Boswell —What rubbish! Senator SANDERS —Senator Boswell, an expert on the subject-- The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN(Senator Bjelke-Petersen) —Senator Sanders, would you please address the Chair. Senator SANDERS —I will. Senator Boswell is a champion of the cause that it will not have any effect. Of course it has an effect: it adds heat to the atmosphere. Senator Boswell —Boiling water! Senator SANDERS —Boiling water from nuclear power adds heat to the atmosphere. Senator Boswell —Does it add any more heat to the atmosphere than boiling it with coke, coal or oil? Senator SANDERS —No, it does not. None of these things should be done. This brings up another point of Senator Parer's. Do you realise-- Senator Puplick —None of these things should be done! Senator SANDERS —Here is our Opposition spokesman for the environment, Senator Puplick, leading the laughing. The TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN —Order! Senator Sanders, would you please address your remarks through the Chair and stop answering interjections. Would the interjectors please keep quiet. Senator SANDERS —I am afraid this rabble is becoming uncontrollable. Anything we do has to be done in balance. We are way out of balance now. I think that even Senator Puplick could understand the threats of the greenhouse effect and the damage to the ozone layer. We are out of balance. We must live within our means. I am sure the Government-in a budgetary sense and an environmental sense-would like us to live within our means. That means using renewable energy, renewable resources. This is technologically feasible but it does not please those who would sell off our environment, our minerals, and who would sell off something that they can make a bundle out of. If the oil companies and the uranium companies could throw a blanket over the sun and then sell a hole in it, we would immediately have solar power. But of course, we do not. I ask the Minister what he will do. What will his Government do about uranium? Will it stop selling uranium to France because that it its policy? Will it continue in violation of its policy? Will it open up more mines? Will it open up more mines in a national park such as Kakadu National Park? Senator Panizza —Good idea! Senator SANDERS —`Hear, hear', say the troglodytes of the Right. Senator Panizza from Western Australia would also like to have uranium mines. What will the Minister do? Will he look to the future to protect the unborn or will he merely pander to the wishes of the multinationals? Which is it, Minister? Senator TAMBLING(Northern Territory)(10.19) —It is easy to see what sort of results we get in debates when people have a distilled dinner. The Australian Democrats have a very fanciful set of policies relating to uranium. Whilst we may certainly call into question many of the actions that the Government has taken in some areas, at least it does not fall into the trap of thinking that because it represents a very small sector of the Australian community it has the right to preach a gospel claiming it has all the wisdom in this area. What Senator Sanders conveniently forgets in all of his debate is that energy is the driving force of where we are and what it is all about, and the future generations will not be able to exist without the generation of power that will be so very necessary from uranium and from the full nuclear cycle. In addressing the appropriations that are before us today I would like to pose a number of questions to the Minister at the table, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson), particularly relating to the operations of the Office of the Supervising Scientist for the Alligator Rivers Region and the implications that come in that area with regard to uranium development at this time. The Minister has to accept that he holds a very onerous responsibility in looking at the future of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. He would be well aware that in February and March the Shadow Minister for science, Mr Warwick Smith, and Mr Ian Wilson MP, in the House of Representatives, Senator Austin Lewis and I in this place, and in more recent days the Northern Territory Minister for Mines and Energy, Barry Coulter, have all raised the prospect of transferring the functions of the Office of the Supervising Scientist to the University College of the Northern Territory. I believe Mr Coulter has been encouraged in discussions with Ministers of the Labor Government, including the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke), that this is an appropriate matter to be considered. I would like to solicit this evening the Minister's views in this regard, as to where he sees the future function of the Office of the Supervising Scientist. Is it in the Northern Territory, or is it to remain attached to Bondi, where in my argument it is inappropriate for ensuring that this matter is looked at and the monitoring functions being properly carried out? There are many issues to support the argument as to why the monitoring function should be very properly done in the Northern Territory, either by the Department of Mines or, for those research and very important functions, by the very new but exciting University College of the Northern Territory. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister's views in this regard. The other area I would like the Minister to address very particularly is the consultation process that is going on with the Aboriginal people who are vitally affected with the uranium development in the mining province. I think it was Senator Parer who said earlier this evening that he is aware-and I know this also from discussions I have had with Senator Collins-that there will be a number of people from the Gagadju Association and from the East Alligator Rivers region here this week. Does the Minister agree with the statements by the National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Mr Hogg, that these Aboriginal people are merely being used as tools for people whom they have employed? I find that a disgraceful assertion by someone who holds such high office within the Labor Party and who is seeking to influence the debate on major uranium issues for the forthcoming Conference of the Labor Party to be held in Hobart in a week or so. The Northern Territory has already lost millions of dollars as a result of Labor's stubbornness on uranium mining. The decisions of the last six years have cost the community throughout Australia many millions of dollars. We have heard in recent days from Mr Bilney in the other place, from Senator Collins and Senator Aulich in here, and from a number of people who are taking a practical approach to this problem. They recognise it is appropriate and it is timely to change the Government's policies in this area. Does the Minister at the table agree with the necessity to move away from the restrictive and confining policies in which we have been bound up for the past few years? I ask the Minister: What would be the particular benefits to the Commonwealth Government and the Northern Territory Government and to the Aboriginal people of the East Alligator Rivers area if the Koongarra and Jabiluka mines were to be opened up? Has the Government had available to it in recent times economic reports that have carefully looked at these issues? Has the Hawke Government reached any recent decisions on the important future financing of our community and the benefits that would flow? I am aware, from figures that have been floating around in the media, that the Koongarra project would produce some $2 billion in export earnings over the next 10 years and some $256m in royalties and participation to the Aboriginal communities through job creation. Senator Sanders continually seems to put aside the fact that jobs are important. Some 2,300 man years of direct employment would flow from the Koongarra project. The uranium oxide from Koongarra is already available for sale through Denison Australia Pty Ltd. It is available not to France, but to Japan and Canada. What is the important implication of that for Australia? I believe that the negotiated sale price is well above the current standard floor price. It is important to recognise that benefits would flow to the traditional Aboriginal owners of the area and, of course, to government revenues and the economy, through the involvement of the community. What are the costs of the Labor Party's current policy? I ask the Minister to tell us what detailed studies have been undertaken recently by his Department. What studies have been undertaken by the Office of the Supervising Scientist of the environmental impact on the area? What studies have been undertaken recently by the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service? I believe that on environmental issues the present Ranger and Nabarlek mines can stand well and truly on their record. They can stand proud. I want to know what recent studies the Government has had available to it. In two weeks time the Labor Party will be challenged to open up in many areas and it will have to look very carefully at its policies. Whilst I named Mr Campbell, Mr Bilney, Senator Collins, Senator Aulich and others who have had the courage to say where they stand on this issue, I am extremely disappointed that the two Northern Territory delegates to the Labor Party Conference do not have the guts to stand up and say exactly how they will vote on this issue. Mr John Waters is a leftie who is well and truly identified. I have no doubt that he will be bound and towed into his faction. But the Leader of the Opposition in the Northern Territory, Mr Terry Smith, has equivocated all over the place. He cannot make up his mind. He cannot decide where to go, like so many others in the Labor Party. On a radio talkback program in Darwin this morning, Terry Smith said: I'm going to be going down there and putting forward the best possible case for the Territory . . . going to be involved in all the negotiations and discussions going on, going to get the best deal for the Territory with all the negotiations at the Conference. Later he said: . . . want to be an important piece of those discussions . . . I'm on the inside, I'm, working within the Party at this stage, it's a very sensitive issue within the Labor Party. However, Terry Smith does not have the courage, like so many members of the Labor Party, to take a stance and say where the Territory's interests are. What are the Territory's interests? We all know where Senator Collins stands on this issue. He issued one of the best ever technical policy statements; it was a background paper on uranium-- Senator Collins —Kiss of death Tambling. Senator TAMBLING —It might be the kiss of death to Senator Collins if he goes on factional lines, but it was certainly a damned good viewpoint in opposition to the Milton paper of the Left which had been circulated some time before. I want to know where Senator Richardson stands. Is Senator Richardson prepared to back Senator Collins's document? Is he prepared to stand up and say that, as a result of the studies of the Office of the Supervising Scientist, the various reports which are available to him from his Department, and the economic studies that have been done by the Department of the Treasury and others, he will stand tall at the Conference and argue the case for the Northern Territory and Australia? Senator COLLINS(Northern Territory)(10.30) —I rise very briefly in this debate to correct the public record. I wish to do it in here because I represent my constituents in here. Unfortunately, as Senator Tambling has said-- The CHAIRMAN —Order! Your speech is very brief. It being 10.30 p.m., under sessional order, I put the question: That the Chairman do leave the chair and report to the Senate. Question resolved in the negative. Senator COLLINS —Perhaps the National Secretary would have preferred that I had finished my speech. The National Secretary of the Australian Labor Party, Bob Hogg, went on the National Nine television channel tonight and spoke about a group of my constituents, my Aboriginal constituents, who are coming to Canberra on Wednesday, as constituents of all races and creeds in this democratic country of ours do, to make representations to their government about something that they want very much. I have known those constituents of mine for 20 years. I represented them in the Northern Territory Parliament for 10 years. On more occasions than I can remember over those 10 years-hundreds of occasions-when I visited them in their homes in Kakadu National Park I received representations from them relating to uranium mining. The National Secretary of the Labor Party, to my great regret, said on national television tonight that the Aboriginal people who are coming down here on Wednesday had employed a professional journalist as a consultant, as a lobbyist if you like, to represent them, that that action therefore demonstrated that they did not know their own minds on this issue, and that they did not really want uranium mining because-I quote him-they were simply `being manipulated' by the people they were employing. Bob Hogg, to my certain knowledge, has never met my constituents, the owners of the Koongarra uranium mine. In order to correct the public record on behalf of my constituents, who have been publicly vilified and slurred on national television tonight by the National Secretary of the Labor Party, I want to put this on the record: I was elected in 1977 by those people to fight mining on their land. There is no question about the ticket I was elected on. It was not uranium mining, I stress, but mining. It could have been mining for iron ore or for marshmallows. They did not want mining of any description on their land. Because I knew that 100 per cent of my constituency had that view I represented them, as I was elected to do, as ably as I could to prevent mining on their land, and we failed. The government of the day, in a highly controversial debate-a document was subsequently produced Uranium: Australia's decision; I remember it well-determined that in the national interest the wishes of those people would be put aside and mining would proceed. That decision was taken in accordance with the formal recommendation of the Fox Ranger Uranium Environmental Inquiry that had been set up by the previous Labor Government. In those days, when Aboriginal people were vociferously opposing mining on their land, they were accused on a daily basis, and I along with them, by the uranium lobby and the mining industry generally-I still have yellowing files of Press reports demonstrating this-of being tools of the environmental movement, of being mindless creatures of the anti-uranium lobby when, in fact, they were neither; they were simply Aboriginal land owners doing the best they could to make decisions themselves about what they wanted done with their land. After the mines were established because the opposition to them did not prevail, the Aboriginal people of the Kakadu region established, over the last eight years, a very effective working relationship with the mining companies. Honourable senators might like to ask themselves why, in all of the controversy surrounding the uranium industry, there has been no controversy in the last eight years about the operations of those two uranium mines on Aboriginal land. The reason is very simple: it is that the Aboriginal people exert a considerable degree of control over how those mines operate. The operators, sensibly, are very sensitive to Aboriginal opinion and, in their own interests, if nothing else, if not for altruism, bend over backwards to maintain a proper working relationship with the Aboriginal people of the area. In other words, that relationship has been successful. Aboriginal people, being intelligent people with minds of their own, have learnt over the last eight years that they can work cooperatively, at least with the companies that operate those two uranium mines. Into the bargain, they have received benefits of $96m over that period, which they have used to purchase a motel in Kakadu National Park, to construct a second motel which will open this year, to establish their own health service employing their own medical practitioner to deliver health services to them, to establish their own school and to provide themselves with vehicles and transceiver radios so that the out-station communities can communicate with each other. They have done that as a result of the mining royalties. At the same time, as I have said before, through one of the ablest and most articulate organisations in this country, the Northern Land Council, they have exerted a considerable degree of control over and supervision of the mining industry. We now have, in 1988, the National Secretary of my Party appearing on national television and saying that the Aboriginal people who are coming here on Wednesday, whom I hope he will have the decency to meet, have no minds of their own and are simply captives of the people that they are employing professionally to assist them with the media. I do not like that statement because it is undiluted racism of the worst kind. We all employ professionals to help us, particularly in this line of business. It is amusing that the person who is being discussed, Richard Farmer, who is being employed largely on my recommendation-because he is an extremely competent journalist-to assist them with the media, is a journalist that the Labor Party has employed on many occasions to assist it with campaigns. So it is interesting to hear that from the National Secretary of the Labor Party. Ten years ago when Aboriginal people opposed mining on their land, they were not slaves of the environment lobby, the greenie lobby. They were trying to make decisions for themselves about what they wanted for their land. Ten years on, because they now support uranium mining on their land, they are not captives of or being manipulated by the pro-mining lobby; they are simply consistently trying to do the same thing as they were doing 10 years ago-make decisions for themselves about what they want on their land. In my view they are entitled to do that. They are entitled to come to Canberra and they are entitled to make representations to their Government about what they want for Koongarra. They are entitled, as we are all entitled, to employ any number of professional persons that they wish to employ to assist them in that regard. These people who are coming to Canberra are part of a company; they are involved in a substantial joint venture with Denison mines which, if realised, will net them $256m over 10 years. That is an amount of money which, of course, will give them significant financial independence, and will allow them to get an even firmer stranglehold on the tourism infrastructure in Kakadu National Park which will provide them with jobs, career opportunities and security for a period which will far outlast the mines. I do not think it is a remarkable thing that, under all of those circumstances, they would want the mines to go ahead. It would be extraordinary, frankly, if they did not. It is remarkable, however, in my view, that non-Aboriginal people in this country, particularly in politics, can employ any number of accountants, lawyers, speech writers or journalists, professionally to assist them, and that is a matter that goes without any comment at all. But when Aboriginal people presume to do the same thing they are labelled as mindless tools of the very people they employ. It is not true. It is absolutely untrue. On behalf of my constituents I refute it. I condemn the person who has made that statement and I am publicly suggesting in this chamber that on Wednesday he should take the opportunity of meeting these people. I hope to bring them into the Senate chamber so that perhaps at Question Time they can see how their Parliament operates. I might even take them up the hill and show them the Taj Mahal. They can have a look at that as well. Whatever point of view is expressed in this uranium debate, whether one is for it or against it, the one argument that I could at least expect to be stilled in 1988 is the argument that the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory are simply the mindless tools of others. They are not. They have their own minds. They express themselves articulately through their organisations. They want those mines to go ahead and, whether one agrees with that or not, that is what they want. They do not want what other people have put in their heads. I refute those suggestions absolutely. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.42) —As a Minister in the Hawke Government, naturally enough I support its policies. I am not aware of any change in Cabinet on these policies, so I support them as they stand. That equals three mines. I am asked what will happen at the Australian Labor Party (ALP) Conference next week. I will not answer on two grounds: firstly, I do not believe it is the province of Estimates committees to delve into what might happen at the ALP Conference and, secondly, anyone who tries to predict a week in advance what will happen at that Conference should have his head read. I come to some of the specifics raised by honourable senators, in particular by Senator Tambling, on the question of the Office of the Supervising Scientist and the suggestion that the functions of the OSS be transferred to a university college in Darwin. Mr Coulter from the Northern Territory has spoken to me about that. It is something on which I have left the door open. There is at times a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the OSS. It is not to come up with engineering solutions for environmental problems caused by mining. Rather, for this Government, it is to monitor the effects of mining and to ensure that there are no deleterious effects on the environment and, if there is, for it to tell us so that we can insist that something be done about it. However, it is not the case that that means there can be no transfer. It is something which I am prepared to pursue with Mr Coulter. In fact, when I saw him in Sydney a few weeks ago, I asked him to give me a detailed proposition on this so that I could have a proper look at it; and I shall do so. I am asked about reports of my Department, of Treasury and of every other department about uranium mining. I have not got any. The Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories is not in the habit of asking for those sorts of reports. Neither the National Parks and Wildlife Service nor the OSS, to my knowledge, is conducting any inquiry into uranium mining and its environmental effects at the moment. We are more heavily engaged in other matters. When it comes to the ALP Conference, I will be making up my mind as a delegate along with 98 others. I have not even found out what the agenda will be yet, let alone decided what I will do with any matter that comes up. Given that my esteemed colleague Senator Sanders did not raise a point of order when his remarks were referred to by Senator Parer as insanity, I would have to say that I do not agree that Senator Sanders is insane-he is just wrong. This is a democracy and he is entitled to be wrong. I am not going to give Senator Sanders my views on where I stand on these matters. I will make my views known, if I need to, at the National Conference of the Labor Party next week. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(10.46) —The moving speech made tonight by Senator Collins is in stark contrast with what we have heard tonight and in the last few days from the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories, Senator Richardson. The Minister's repeated refusals to uphold Minister Cohen's promise to honour the recommendations of the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests remind me of St Peter thrice denying that he knew Jesus. I remind you, Mr Chairman, that St Peter went down in history as both gutless and dishonest. That is how history is going to regard Senator Richardson and that is how we in Tasmania regard him now. But he is only taking after his Prime Minister (Mr Hawke). All Tasmanians remember very well how the Prime Minister came down to Tasmania last July trying to buy votes for the election. He promised that Tasmania had had all the cuts to its budget that it would have to face. We all know, with the benefit of hindsight and the Premiers Conference, just how much the Prime Minister's promises are worth. They equate to those of his Minister, Senator Richardson. Nor has the Prime Minister or his Government fulfilled their responsibilities and their promises regarding the Tasmanian dam compensation money. I would like to ask the Minister a question on this subject. There is an amount in the appropriations for compensation money for Queensland. I would like to ask the Minister whether there is any amount for dam compensation moneys for Tasmania? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.47) —I recall, of course, that when the Government took its decision back in 1983-84 on the question of the Franklin Dam, there were considerable amounts of money for dam compensation in Tasmania. I am not aware of any appropriation this time. I will seek advice to see whether there is any. But I am not aware of any. Senator BOSWELL(Queensland)(10.48) —Tonight we have heard much from our Tasmanian Liberal senators about the Helsham Commission of Inquiry into the Lemonthyme and Southern Forests. Understandably, they are very annoyed that after $2m has been spent on the Helsham report, the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) is still incapable of making up his mind. I want to put on record tonight that the Minister has spent $300,000 on other reports. These reports were entitled, first, Queensland Wet Tropical Rainforests; secondly, Forestry and Timber Industry of North Queensland-Impact of Proposed World Heritage Listing; thirdly, Alternative Employment Creation and Mitigation of Impacts of Listing the Queensland Wet Tropical Rainforests as a World Heritage Area; and fourthly World Heritage Listing, Queensland Tropical Rainforests, Assessment of Social Impact. I have studied these reports which have cost the taxpayer $300,000. I cannot see where, in any of those reports, other than the tainted Aila Keto report-- Senator Richardson —It is Aila. Senator BOSWELL —However her name is pronounced, and whatever name honourable senators call her by, she is the President of the Rainforests Conservation Society. Apart from that report, I would like the Minister to indicate where in any of these reports it is stated that logging should cease in the wet Queensland rainforests. I challenge the Minister. I do not think he can tell me or the Senate where any one of those reports states categorically that it would be beneficial to Queenslanders, the timber workers or the forests to stop logging. I say to the Minister: The $75m compensation package that he has given does not exceed three years of the money that would have come out of the $33m a year industry. Can the Minister tell the people of north Queensland where he gets his information that would sustain the argument for ceasing logging in the 890,000 hectares of rainforests in north Queensland? Is it again a case of the Minister ignoring expert advice, as he has ignored the Helsham committee report? If the Minister and his Government are going to ignore these reports from now on, will he give the Senate a commitment that he will no longer waste taxpayers' money in the pursuit of trying to support an unsustainable argument with these reports? Also, will the Minister tell the people of north Queensland whether the $2,500 they are entitled to is subject to tax or will result in their losing the dole? Is it subject to losing two weeks dole money before they get the payment? What is the net effect of the $2,500 with tax taken out and two weeks dole money lost? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.52) —That Senator Boswell once again is the victim of his total inability at any stage to come to grips with the Government's decision in north Queensland would be a surprise to no-one. He has constantly raised the matter of these consultants' reports. We have heard it time and time again. He has tried to build something of an image in Queensland as the man who forced me to release them-which, of course, is nonsense. The reality is that during 1987 I had given Senator Durack an undertaking to release the reports-and I released them, as I always said I would, immediately after the Government's consideration of them was completed and the Cabinet decision taken. It had nought to do with freedom of information or anything like that; it had everything to do with the proper process of government, and that was to get hold of these reports and examine and study them, just as we are doing with the Helsham report, to make sure that the Government's decisions were correct. The question is: What decisions were we having examined by these consultants? Senator Boswell is quite right. There were any number of consultancies: on the regional economy, by Griffith University; on alternative employment, by Griffith University; on social impacts, by Griffith University; on the timber industry, by ACIL Australia Pty Ltd; on the mining industry, by the National Environment Consultancy; on the tourism industry, the same. So, there were plenty of consultants-and they cost $300,000. Having said that, I point out that these consultancies were all commissioned by the Government in order to determine the appropriate response for its compensation package. They were never commissioned to tell the Government whether nominating the area in north Queensland for World Heritage-which we did in the end-was proper. They were never asked to assess whether we had sufficient scientific value in those forests. The reason we did not get consultants to do that was that there was already on the table a welter of scientific evidence to that effect. As Senator Boswell would recall in my response last week on the question of Senator Puplick's disallowance motion, I went through the names, scientist after scientist, here in Australia and around the world. The values of the area were put on the table. I think that ought to answer forever the scientific argument. However, we still needed to know-that is why we have the consultants-just what all the effects of those decisions would be so that we would have a compensation package in place in time for those workers who would have been affected. We were told by Senator Boswell and others that if it was not in place by March all hell would break loose because the workers would all be laid off. When Senator Boswell raised those queries I said that we believed that so much extra timber has been taken that the mills would stay open until June or July. Who was right-Senator Boswell or me? Given that the mill is still going and it will be June in the next day or so, I am, once again, proved correct. All that happened was that the Government made sure it examined the reports in detail and I have got to make sure at the end of the day that we can live with that package. I am very confident that we can. It was carefully thought out and it is working well. Senator Boswell asked questions on tax. We have raised these queries with the Commissioner of Taxation. He has not yet replied. However, I am anticipating an answer very shortly and when I get one I shall make sure that Senator Boswell is the first to hear about it, or the second after me. Senator SANDERS(Tasmania)(10.57) —Senator Newman, who is a very vocal member of the Tasmanian chainsaw lobby, asked a question about dam compensation. I too would like to ask a question about dam compensation and specifically-- Senator Newman —I have not got an answer yet. Senator SANDERS —As Senator Newman says, she has not got an answer yet; I hope I get an answer to this one. I would like to ask the Minister about the Tasmanian Government's misappropriation of funding in that area. It has come to my notice that the Tasmanian Government is intending to close the Collingwood Bridge Ranger Station in the Wild Rivers World Heritage area. The Commonwealth funding for this station will be used to fund a Lands Department office in Queenstown, which will deal primarily with local Tasmanian issues. I feel that this represents a complete misuse of funds which were primarily intended for management of the World Heritage area. To summarise the events as I understand them: Firstly, the Collingwood Bridge Ranger Station, which is the only station in the Wild Rivers National Park, will be closed. As the Minister is probably well aware, this is where the rafters on the Franklin actually start down the river. It is an essential ranger station. It monitors the rafters. It sees that people have the proper gear and that they are going to be able to operate on the river safely. It is a major ranger station in the Wild Rivers National Park. Secondly, the station and the three staff members will be moved to Queenstown which is a 50 minute drive from the national park where they will deal with a large number of non-World Heritage issues. Thirdly, the Queenstown office will deal primarily with Tasmanian west coast Lands Department issues. Fourthly, funding for the office will be at least partly from Federal funds provided specifically for management of the World Heritage area. Fifthly, information provided to me indicates that the Lands Department already has two officers, one at Strahan and one at Queenstown, who are currently working on non-World Heritage matters, but who are funded from Commonwealth funds. This is misappropriation of the worst sort and it is the kind we have come to expect from the Liberal Government in Tasmania. Quite apart from the ethical issues of using funds for purposes for which they were not intended, it seems quite absurd that the only ranger station in the Wild Rivers National Park should be closed and replaced by an office many kilometres away. I hope that the Minister investigates this matter. If he does not have any information on the subject at hand, I urge him to investigate this matter at the earliest opportunity and make sure that two things occur: Firstly, that the rangers are still on duty at the Collingwood Bridge Ranger Station and, secondly, that the Liberal Government of Tasmania, the Gray Government, is no longer allowed to misappropriate Federal funds. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(10.59) —I am not aware of the situation to which Senator Sanders refers. I will have to check on that. Obviously I would be keen to ensure that money given by the Federal Government for the maintenance of the World Heritage area is spent properly because it has been an example of cooperation between State and Federal governments in World Heritage areas and can form a model for Queensland. I would like to make sure that nothing occurs that would upset that model. So on the basis of what the honourable senator has said tonight I will make sure that the issue is raised at the next meeting of the Tasmanian World Heritage Area Council, which I think is on 27 June. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.00) —I would like to continue a series of questions which I had started to ask the Minister but which he does not seem willing to answer. I asked whether there were any dam compensation moneys being made available to Tasmania. I thought he was about to give an answer, but he sat down. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.00) —I thought I answered that. Actually I did; Senator Newman must not have heard me. I said that there were no appropriations for Tasmanian dam compensation in our portfolio. It is not in these appropriations. I am not sure whether there are moneys in other appropriations. I am trying to deal with my own responsibilities. Senator Newman —Is the Minister not aware of the fact that there is dam compensation money as yet unpaid to Tasmania? Senator RICHARDSON —It may or may not be the case that there is dam compensation not yet paid, but it is not money administered by me. I have had plenty to do in recent times trying to keep on top of what I have got, and I do not seek to build empires and check on everyone else. If Senator Newman wishes to follow up these compensation payments I suggest that she find the appropriate place in the Appropriation Bill-and it will not be in this section-and ask the responsible Minister. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.02) —Am I to understand that although there are compensation moneys for Queensland in these appropriations for its rainforests the Minister's Department is not taking responsibility of any kind, advisory or other, for Tasmanian compensation moneys? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.02) —Obviously I have not been a Minister for a long time-just 12 months-but in that time my Department has had no responsibility for administering dam compensation payments to Tasmania. I believe that when compensation for Tasmania was first talked about several years ago the program came under the vote of the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet and it may well be that that is where it still resides. Because I have not had to deal with these moneys I have not kept track of them. Senator NEWMAN(Tasmania)(11.03) —For the benefit of the new Minister, who should take an interest in this matter as it is the first environmental matter in Tasmania that this Government drew blood on, which is one way to describe it, there is an amount of at least $2.85m still outstanding. The Commonwealth has been asked over many months now by the Tasmanian Government to agree to release that money. It was originally proposed that it be spent on a tourist mine in Queenstown in place of the mine there when it closes. That is now not happening and there has been a proposal from the Premier to the Federal Government that the money be diverted to the upgrading of 28 kilometres of the Lyell Highway between Donaghys Hill and the King River deviation. This would mean increased access to west coast areas for tourists and improved living standards for the residents of the west coast who were to be the main beneficiaries of the dam compensation money. I find it amazing that the new Minister does not have any knowledge of this matter, but I draw it to his attention now as I had hoped that he would have had at least some shared Cabinet responsibility for it. I draw his attention to the fact that the Premier of Tasmania wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr Hawke) on 1 October, and there have been three subsequent letters to this Government. I ask the Minister whether this Government will take any responsibility for making the decision. Is it going to pay interest on the money that it will not fork out? Is it using that $2.85m to help boost its so-called surplus in the May economic statement? Just whose money is it, and when are we going to get our fair share? Queensland should be warned to look out for every penny. It may not turn up. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.05) —It must be a terrible disappointment to Senator Newman to have spent all that time researching something and then to find out that she asked about it in the wrong place of the wrong Minister. All I can say is that she will have to do a bit better. She will have at least to look through the Bills and work out where to ask such questions. She could not get it right. It is not my problem; it is hers. Nonetheless, because of the remarkable generosity I feel for poor souls such as Senator Newman we will follow the matter up and see what we can do about it. Senator WALTERS(Tasmania)(11.05) —Is the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson) aware of the result of the upper House election on the west coast of Tasmania yesterday? He probably is aware, as several Federal Ministers and State members went there and campaigned heavily for the local Labor candidate, who came last. I advise the Minister that Peter Schulze, the independent, won the election. Senator Devereux —What about the Liberals? Senator WALTERS —I advise the person who interjected that the Liberal Party does not stand for the upper House: there are independents. Peter Schulze won that seat. The Duke of Avram stood as a bit of a joke. He used his campaign as a publicity stunt to promote his tourism operation, and even he beat the Australian Labor Party. Even he, who ran a campaign as a joke and as a tourist promotion, beat Mr Terry Reid, in support of whom Federal Ministers went down to the west coast of Tasmania where they campaigned very heavily in the mining area. That perhaps points out to the Minister that he had better treat our environmental policy with very great care. Not only has the Labor candidate in this previously blue ribbon Labor seat come last, with all the ministerial support and all the support of the local Labor members; he was trounced, even by those who went into the campaign as a joke, such as the Duke of Avram promoting his tourism venture. Senator Sanders —What is the point? Is there a point? Senator WALTERS —Minister, just take warning. The point, which Senator Sanders has obviously missed is that the Minister and the Labor Party are considered even more of a joke than the Duke of Avram in Tasmania. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.08) —My only comment is that over time I have detected that jokes in Tasmanian politics are not uncommon. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.08) —I wish to raise in relation to the office of the Australian Capital Territory Administration two matters which came up in the Estimates hearings. Firstly, some questions were asked about an area known as Kelly's Farm. I will not go over the matters which came up in the Estimates because they are adequately outlined in Hansard. As a result of the questions which were raised, the Department undertook an investigation and prepared a report. I subsequently received a letter from the office of ACT Administration dated 17 May 1988 which deals with the outcome of that inquiry. For the sake of completion, I seek to have incorporated in Hansard the letter from the Office of City Management dated 17 May and addressed to me. Leave granted. The letter read as follows- Senator Margaret Reid Senator for the ACT 4 Mort Street Canberra City ACT 2601 Dear Senator Reid I refer to matters arising from our meeting on 6 May 1988, concerning agistment practices on land around Kelly's farm. You questioned the involvement in an official capacity of Ranger L. Margules in the area around Kelly's farm. Ranger L. Margules has been employed as a rural ranger by this Administration for 38 years. During the whole of this time his area of responsibility has been the Paddy's River Stromlo districts (see Map) and parts of Tuggeranong prior to residential development. His area of responsibility has always included Kelly's Farm. Areas withdrawn from rural lease for Reserves as in the case of the Murrumbidgee River Corridor (area 4) and the Urambi Hills (area 3) do not come under the responsibility of Ranger Margules. Whilst Ranger Margules is directly responsible for supervising the land agisted by Mark Dallas (area 2 on the attached map) his supervisors ensure that management of this block conforms with our overall requirements for agistees. The Administration will be taking steps in the near future to alter Ranger Margules' area of responsibility to exclude area 2 from his patrol. In future if an Administration employee seeks to be involved in a leasing or agistment arrangement where a discretionary decision is required by the Administration, that decision will be taken by the Portfolio Secretary. You also asked whether there was easy access for horses from Kambah Pool Road to the Government Horse Paddocks. The access for horses from the Kambah Pool Road to the Government Horse Paddocks north of Mt Neighbour will follow the National Horse Trail which will be officially opened on June 5 1988. It is marked on the attached map. You asked that the Administration confirm in writing its intention to allow horse agistment on that part of Kelly's Farm not required for the Youth Haven. It is the intention of the Administration to develop a joint management plan involving the Lions Club, the Kambah Pony Club and the Administration. Horse agistment would play an important part in this management plan. We have written to the Kambah Pony Club advising them of this matter. Yours sincerely J. A. Turner City Manager 17 May 1988 Senator REID —The only other aspect of that matter that I wish to raise is the question of the continuing occupation by Mr and Mrs E. Kelly of some of the land referred to. They have been required to move. They received a notice to that effect I think in about March of this year. They have lived in that area for eight years. They have received a final notice requiring them to move by 10 June of this year, and that notification is dated 5 May 1988. These people, who as I said have lived there for eight years, are attempting to arrange to purchase property in the Yarrowlumla Shire and wish to move there and will be constructing a house there, and they have asked that they be given the opportunity for an extension of some months to enable them to do so. It would seem to me not unreasonable that that should occur, but up until now they have had what they regard as a fairly blank response from the Department of the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories. It may be somewhere nearer the end of this year before they will have their arrangements finalised and a house built on that property. I wonder whether, in the circumstances of all that has gone on in relation to this, there is any good reason why they should not be able to remain living on that property for some further period of time. Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.11) —I am aware that notice has been given to the Kellys to move. It did not happen yesterday. I think this saga has been going on for quite some time. As Senator Reid is aware, the land is to be made available for community purposes, and the decision of the ACT Administration is simply not to extend the lease. If there is a case for giving the Kellys some extension, it has not been made out to me yet, but I will undertake to examine any case that they are putting forward and to see whether it can be done for them. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.12) —I could go on for some considerable time on the case that I believe ought to be put for them. I wonder how seriously the Minister will look at the question of whether I am getting the brush-off about this. The Kellys have lived there for eight years and the final notice to quit is dated 5 May this year, requiring them, with the animals that they have there and everything else, to be removed by 10 June 1988, when in fact the Minister has just said himself that this has been going on for some time and there have been negotiations in relation to the pony club. Even that has only just been sorted out on a reasonably satisfactory basis. This has all been part of the same story and there have been a number of side issues involved. As I have said, the Kellys are purchasing land in the Yarrowlumla Shire and there are a number of formalities that will need to be completed in relation to this before they can then put a house on that block and move out there with the animals, plant and equipment and other things that they have. They are losing the home they have had. They feel they are being pushed around by the Department as far as getting any reasonable understanding of the situation that they have been placed in is concerned. These are the people who have been living in the property on the farm, not the lessees particularly; perhaps the Minister would care to check the facts as far as that is concerned. I think it is not unreasonable that they should be given that extension. Can the Minister tell me that the Lions Club will be moving into that house the day after the Kellys are supposed to be moving out? Is that the fact? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.13) —First off, I would never give Senator Reid the brush-off. If she is putting forward a case for constituents, it will be dealt with and dealt with properly. I can guarantee that no action will be taken on the question of the Kellys until Senator Reid has had ample time to present to me any case she wishes to on their behalf and I have had a proper time to examine it and discuss it with the ACT Administration. I do not think I can go much further than giving that undertaking. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.14) —There are two other matters that did not come up in the Estimates but which have arisen since that I would like to take the opportunity to mention tonight. One of them relates to the ACT Schools Authority review of services for what are referred to by the Authority as low functioning children. Is there a discussion paper which is being used for the basis of the statements and the consideration which is being given to the services for, as I said, what are referred to as low functioning children? Can that paper be made available so that those who are concerned, in particular the special schools, parents and staff, can properly comprehend what is being considered? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.15) —I am advised that no review of the kind that Senator Reid suggests is taking place and, accordingly, there is no discussion paper. Senator Reid —Can the Minister give me an assurance that there will be no statements by any senior people, such as the Chief Education Officer and other senior officers of the Schools Authority, about any changes or any aspect of the provision of services for low functioning children, as they are described? Senator RICHARDSON —I understand that the chief of the Schools Authority has referred publicly to his concern for the high costs of special education. Beyond that I am not aware of any other statements. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.16) —The other matter I want to raise is somewhat more current. I refer to advertising on ACTION buses. My office has been inundated with calls and letters in the last few days regarding an advertisement that has been placed on some buses, and I would like to know how many. The advertisement depicts a condom in terms of, I imagine, an anti-acquired immune deficiency syndrome campaign. Who took the decision to accept the advertising in that form? On how many buses has the advertisement been placed? What revenue is being paid to ACTION for the advertising, and are the buses being used to carry children on school bus routes? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.16) —I am not certain that I can answer all the questions tonight, although I will do my best. The Minister for the Arts and Territories, Gary Punch, in discussions with Neal Blewett, agreed that the Australian Capital Territory should take its proper part in the AIDS campaign, as other States are doing. Senator Stone —A social laboratory again? Senator RICHARDSON —It is not a question of social laboratories. I would have thought that if there is one thing on which we in this chamber could agree it is that AIDS represents an enormous threat to world health over the next few years and that anything we as a Government can do to make people more aware of the problem and of ways of protecting themselves and the community means that we are doing our job. That is why Gary Punch accepted those advertisements. I was asked how many buses those advertisements appear on. I hope that the figure I have is not wildly inaccurate, but I did ask about this the other day. I recall that I was told that about a quarter of the buses in the Australian Capital Territory would carry the advertisement. I am not certain exactly how many that represents, but I think it is about 100 buses. I will have to check on that. I was told the other day that it was being carried on about a quarter of the buses. Senator REID(Australian Capital Territory)(11.18) —Did ACTION require any documentation or any evidence to suggest that this form of advertisement would be likely to reach people who ought to be reached in relation to AIDS? To suggest that there is anything odd about the complaint as to the awareness of the need for a campaign and the seriousness of it is to trivialise the situation. All those who have contacted me have been quite supportive of the concept of a campaign to highlight the need to counteract the disease. There are other ways of doing it. Perhaps tonight is not the right time to go into the details of the sort of campaign that would be more appropriate. Which target group does ACTION think it is getting to by this form of advertisement, and why is it perceived that this is the best way of doing it? Are ACTION and the Minister aware of the feeling in the community about this? Does the Minister have any comprehension of the reaction it has caused, particularly on buses being used on school routes? I have no doubt that some people feel that it is an effective way of advertising the campaign, but it needs to take into account the level of interest that there has been in it and the concern that is being expressed. How many buses carry the advertisement? How many more are still to carry this form of advertisement? What steps were taken to consider different types of advertising for the AIDS campaign that might be used? Is this artwork to be used on all the rest of the buses that do not already have it? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.20) —I am advised that we will not be putting the advertisements on any more buses. About one hundred buses carry the advertisement. In terms of what sort of information the Department had on which to base its decision, that is a question best directed to Dr Blewett's Department. It is the responsible agency which developed the national campaign in which, I understand, a number of States as well as the Australian Capital Territory are cooperating. I do not believe there is anything odd about people complaining. If Senator Reid got that impression I must have used words inadequately. I can understand why people would be worried about the advertisement. It is obviously new, it is different and it is very strong. I can understand why those in the community who have concerns on some moral issues would worry about it. The decision was taken that AIDS was such a serious problem that it merited serious treatment by the Australian Capital Territory taking part in the national campaign. Senator Reid —Could the Minister also tell us, or table in the Senate, the other forms of advertising of the anti-AIDS campaign that were considered by ACTION before this advertisement was chosen, or was this the only artwork that was put forward? Senator RICHARDSON —I am not aware of any other advertisements of artwork considered. The Minister decided to join in the national campaign. As Senator Reid would be aware, the national AIDS campaign has had considerable sums devoted to it by the Government in the last few years to develop just such a campaign. Senator Reid —Are these advertisements carried on buses in all the other capital cities of Australia to the same extent-such as one-quarter of the bus fleet-as in the Australian Capital Territory? Senator RICHARDSON —I do not think they are on buses in every capital city but they are in most. In Queensland they do not even want to use condoms. There was an attempt to ban them. Senator Stone —That has nothing to do with it. Senator RICHARDSON —It has a lot to do with it. Senator Stone's brand of conservatism is disgraceful. Senator Stone —Others are looking at the target group, which you have totally failed to do. Senator RICHARDSON —The target group certainly will not include Senator Stone. With national campaigns, obviously each State does not do its own research and make its own decisions. Each State relies primarily upon the national campaign. That is what we have done here. I do not know the number of buses upon which the advertisements appear in each capital city, but I shall endeavour to find out. I have just been told that the other cities which are currently showing the advertisements are Perth, Melbourne and Hobart. I hope that is not an invitation for Senator Walters to come back into the chamber. Senator Reid —Does the Minister know what proportion of buses in those cities carry the advertisement? Is the proportion similar to that in the Australian Capital Territory? Senator RICHARDSON —As I said, I do not know the numbers in the other cities. I would have to find out. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.24) —On the same subject, what discussions were held with what groups before it was decided to run this advertising campaign nationally? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.24) —I am not aware of discussions with any community groups. Discussion was between the two Ministers and followed what I would describe as a lengthy national debate about the course we should take on AIDS protection and the advertising with it. Senator Harradine will recall the enormous debate which the television campaign engendered recently. We see this campaign as an extension of that. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.25) —I want to find out the Government's policy on this matter, as distinct from that of the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch). Is it Government policy that this type of campaign be engaged in-specifically, the types of advertising to which Senator Reid has referred and against which there has been a good deal of reaction? Did the Minister take the advice only of the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) in this regard or was the Minister aware-leaving aside the moral aspect-of the surveys that had been done in respect of the failure rates of condoms? Was the Minister aware that the greatest cause of the sexually transmitted disease acquired immune deficiency syndrome at present is promiscuity? Did the Minister consider whether the advertisements would promote a climate of promiscuity which would create greater problems down the track? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.26) —These advertisements are the Government's policy. There is no doubt about that. They are part of the campaign developed under Dr Blewett. Senator Harradine asked whether the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch) took advice only from the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett). He took advice primarily from that Minister. He did mention it to me before the decision was made and I did not object to his making the decision, and supported his doing so. Another question was whether the Minister was aware of studies showing the failure rates of condoms. Such studies would represent but one aspect of this debate. While it is certainly true that there are failure rates, it is also true that according to the great majority of medical studies, condoms still represent the best form of defence that we have at the moment, even if that form is not perfect. Senator Harradine asked whether the Minister was aware that the greatest cause of the sexually transmitted disease acquired immune deficiency syndrome was promiscuity and whether he thought that the advertisements might create a climate for it. Anyone who knows Gary Punch would know his views on those issues. They would not be all that far from Senator Harradine's. Of course, governments cannot legislate to prevent promiscuity. It has been going on for a long time and it will probably go on after the term of this Government. The question is: Can we accept the situation in which that promiscuity could create health problems for individuals in the community? It was the decision of the Minister and of the Government that we could not and that the best form of defence currently available to us was to take part in this campaign. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.28) —I am not sure whether I misheard the Minister when he referred to the best form of defence. I heard that the Minister for Community Services and Health (Dr Blewett) had said that persons, groups, councils and State governments who did not go along with this campaign of posters in the buses were lacking courage. Would it not be rather more courageous of the Minister, whose advice has been given to the Minister for the Arts and Territories (Mr Punch), to tell the facts of life and suggest that it is a deadly risk for any young man at any stage, with or without a condom, to engage in homosexual anal sex? Is the Minister talking about that sort of campaign, or is he talking about a campaign of condom posters in buses? Which does he think would be the more effective? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.30) —I would see those campaigns as related. If Senator Harradine looks at the course of the campaign over the last 12 months he will see that it has not only been about advertisements on buses or advertisements on television; there has been the production of considerable written material which concentrates on a number of these issues. Obviously, anal sex between men or heterosexual anal sex is going to be a cause of AIDS if it involves carriers. That is an appalling state of affairs which we have to address. Perhaps Dr Blewett did not feel it appropriate that he tell homosexuals not to engage in the act-- Senator Stone —Why not? Senator RICHARDSON —But rather tried to suggest how they might perform that act more safely. By way of interjection, I am asked `Why did he not tell them?'. As I said, the Minister would see that not as his duty but as a personal choice and something that is up to them. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.31) —I am not sure whether I gathered this information from the answer given to Senator Reid, but to whom are these condom advertisements directed? Are they directed at the school kids who are travelling in the buses? If so, what effect does the Minister think that would have on the minds of the school children? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.32) —The sad fact is that young people are not immune from AIDS. I only wish that they were, by virtue of age. But anyone who engages in, as Senator Harradine referred to earlier, promiscuous activity is at risk. In some cases we have to acknowledge that people who are still at school are involved in that sort of behaviour. If they are, I would like to make sure that, no matter what age they are, they are best equipped to protect themselves and eventually the community. If they are promiscuous, that implies that there will be other partners down the line. Whether someone was at school or not would not be the problem. The problem would be whether they were indulging in the behaviour that causes the problem. Sadly, some young people who are still at school do so. It is the Government's concern to make sure that anyone who is a potential risk of either spreading the disease or catching it is advised of the best way to take precautions to make sure that that does not happen. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.33) —Is it then the Government's policy to attempt to create an atmosphere or to remove suggestions that would promote promiscuous sex? Is that what the Government is saying? Senator PUPLICK(New South Wales)(11.34) —Is the Minister aware that the Anglican Dean of Melbourne has congratulated the Government on this particular campaign, that the Parliamentary Liaison Committee on AIDS has been consulted on this particular matter and that the overwhelming weight of evidence is that the Government is on the right track as far as this matter is concerned? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.34) —The Government is not about, and never has been about, promoting promiscuous behaviour. Senator Harradine —What about-- Senator RICHARDSON —Let me answer, because this is a serious problem. I did see what Senator Reid referred to as art work. I must confess that I have yet to see a bus on which the advertisements are displayed. Although I have seen the artwork, I could not see anything in it which promoted promiscuity. As I said earlier, we cannot legislate to prevent promiscuity. But what we can do as a government is try to lift education levels on the subject to a point where people can understand the consequences of their behaviour. That being the case, a government has a duty to protect public health. As Senator Puplick points out, the weight of evidence is that we are moving in the right direction. I have seen absolutely no reason so far why we ought to change. Rather, if anything, we should try to make sure that we get the other capital cities which are not yet part of this program to join in. Senator HARRADINE(Tasmania)(11.36) —That leads me to the question I really wanted to ask the Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories (Senator Richardson). If the Government is not about promoting promiscuous activity, how does that policy square with its continuing legislation which enables X-rated videos to be sent from Canberra to be available throughout Australia, the nature of which promote promiscuous activity such as group sex, anal sex and the like? Senator RICHARDSON(New South Wales-Minister for the Arts, Sport, the Environment, Tourism and Territories)(11.37) —As I mentioned to Senator Harradine some days ago, I discussed with the Minister for the Arts and Territories, Mr Punch, what might best be done in the Australian Capital Territory in reaction to the report of the Joint Select Committee on Video Material, of which Senator Harradine is a member. That Committee's report, which has been released for only a short time, presents some problems to us. It certainly presented some problems to members of the Committee in terms of determining what the Committee actually did. So it is not unreasonable to expect that it would merit some proper consideration by us. I can assure Senator Harradine that the report is very high on Gary Punch's list of priorities. He has been talking to me about it over the past couple of weeks. I think we should have an outcome fairly shortly. Proposed expenditure agreed to. Department of Social Security Proposed expenditure-$14,005,000-agreed to. Remainder of Bill agreed to. Bill reported without requests; report adopted. Bill (on motion by Senator Bolkus) read a third time. Consideration resumed from 19 May, on motion by Senator Robert Ray: That the Bill be now read a second time. Question resolved in the affirmative. Bill read a second time, and passed through its remaining stages without amendment or debate. Motion (by Senator Gareth Evans)-by leave-agreed to: That, notwithstanding anything contained in the Standing or Sessional Orders, the order of business on Tuesday, 31 May be as follows: (1) Petitions (2) Notices of Motion (3) Formal Motions-Discovery of Formal Business (4) Postponement and Re-arrangement of Business (5) Government Business (6) At 2 p.m., Questions (7) Any proposal pursuant to Standing Order 64 (8) Consideration of Government Papers pursuant to Sessional Order (9) Further consideration of Government Business Senate adjourned at 11.41 p.m. The following papers were tabled: Defence Act-Determinations 1988- No. 17-Flight Duties Allowance and others. No. 18-Pilot Retention Bonus No. 19-Pilot Retention Bonus The following answers to questions were circulated: (Question No. 291) Senator Colston asked the Minister for Transport and Communications, upon notice, on 13 April 1988: What were the travel details for the month of March 1988 for each Director of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation who travelled at Corporation expense, details to include the reason for travel, the cost of air, rail or coach travel, travelling allowances paid and the cost of motor vehicle travel. Senator Gareth Evans —The answer to the honourable senator's question, based, in part, on information provided by the ABC, is as follows: Air fare Travel allowance $ $ Chairman Bob Somervaille 16-18 March; Sydney-Darwin-Alice Springs-Sydney... 1478 270 * Inspection of ABC facilities Wendy McCarthy 7 March; Adelaide-Melbourne... 242 - * Attend public meeting called by Advisory Council Joan Spiller 1 March; Melbourne-Sydney-Melbourne... 514 - * Special Meeting ABC Board 24 March; Melbourne-Albury-Melbourne... 174 115 * Attend a public meeting called by a community group to discuss the future of ABC 29-30 March; Melbourne-Sydney-Melbourne... 514 290 * Monthly Board Meeting Ken McLeod 1 March; Melbourne-Sydney-Melbourne... 514 - * Special Meeting ABC Board 4 March; Melbourne-Hobart-Melbourne... 472 - * Attend public meeting called by Tasmanian Advisory Council 11-12 March; Melbourne-Hobart-Melbourne... 472 180 * Represent Board at Tasmanian Advisory Council Meeting 30 March; Melbourne-Sydney-Melbourne... 514 - * Attend monthly Board Meeting Leo Amadio 30 March; Adelaide-Canberra-Sydney-Adelaide... 617 180 * Monthly Board Meeting Neville Bonner 1 March; Brisbane-Sydney-Brisbane... *n.a. - * Special Meeting ABC Board 29-30 March; Brisbane-Sydney-Brisbane... *n.a. 260 * Attend monthly Board Meeting There was no rail, coach or motor vehicle travel during the month of March 1988. * Mr Bonner is in possession of a Gold Pass. (Question No. 327) Senator Jenkins asked the Minister representing the Minister for Social Security, upon notice, on 10 May 1988: (1) What are the (a) type of residency; and (b) length of residency qualifications, for receiving the Australian (i) age pension, (ii) invalid pension, (iii) widow's pension and supporting parent's benefit, (iv) unemployment benefit, (v) sickness benefit and (vi) special benefit. (2) Under what circumstances can (a) residence in another country; and (b) contributions to a contributory pension scheme in another country be counted towards meeting, in full or in part, the residency qualifications for Australian pensions and benefits. (3) Are pensions paid by another country to former residents of that country now living in Australia regarded as income for the purposes of the income test on Australian pensions and benefits; and (b) how are they treated under that income test. (4) Are pensions paid by another country to former residents of that country now living in Australia regarded as income for the purposes of the income test on fringe benefits concessions; and (b) how are they treated under that income test. (5) What stage has been reached in negotiations between Australia and Italy and between Australia and Greece, on reciprocal social security agreements. (6) What obstacles to agreement have been encountered so far in negotiations between Australia and Italy and between Australia and Greece, on reciprocal social security agreements. Senator Bolkus —The Minister for Social Security has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: (1) (a) (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) and (v) A person must be an `Australian resident' (i.e., an Australian citizen, or a legal permanent resident residing in Australia) and present in Australia at the date of lodgment of the claim. (vi) A person must be a resident of Australia throughout the period of payment. Special benefit is not payable to a prohibited non-citizen. (1) (b) (i) Ten years as an `Australian resident' at any time, of which at least five years must have been continuous. (ii) No period as an `Australian resident' required where permanent incapacity or blindness occurred in Australia. Where permanent incapacity or blindness occurred outside Australia, the required residence conditions are the same as for age pension. (iii) No period of residence required if the claimant and her husband were `Australian residents' at date of widowhood or where the event by which a claimant became a supporting parent occurred in Australia. In other cases the requirement is a continuous period of five years as an `Australian resident' immediately preceding the date of lodgement of the claim or a continuous period of ten years as an `Australian resident' at anytime. New Zealand citizens are precluded from supporting parent's benefit during their first six months in Australia. (iv) and (v) A person must be an `Australian resident' throughout the period of payment. New Zealand citizens are precluded from unemployment benefit during their first six months in Australia. (vi) A person must be a resident of Australia throughout the period of payment. Special benefit is not payable to a prohibited non-citizen. (2) (a) and (b) Reciprocal social security agreements can enable periods of residence and/or periods of residence and/or periods of contributions in other countries to be added to periods as an `Australian resident' to meet the minimum Australian residence requirements for pensions. (3) (a) Yes. Pensions paid by other countries are regarded as income for purposes of income testing Australian pensions and benefits. However, there are certain exceptions, for example: Payments which are in respect of children; German restitution payments, other than amounts for loss of income; Reciprocal agreements can provide for the exemption of certain foreign payments such as government supplements, but this depends on the nature of the payments and the concessions given under the agreement by the other country. (3) (a) Foreign pensions are treated in the same way as all other forms of income in the application of the income test, i.e. all income is added together and the Australian pension is reduced by one half of the total income above specified limits. However, special rules apply where a person qualifies only because he or she has counted overseas periods as Australian residence. In these cases, the foreign pension is directly deducted from the rate of Australian pension. (4) (a) As for (3) (a). (4) (b) Foreign pensions are treated in the same way as all other forms of income in the application of the income test on fringe benefit concessions. In cases where foreign pensions are directly deducted from the rate of Australian pensions, they are not treated as income for fringe benefit purposes. (5) (i) A reciprocal agreement on social security was signed with Italy in April 1986 and Australian legislation to give effect to it was enacted in December 1986. Australia is ready to ratify the Agreement. The corresponding Italian legislation was approved by the Italian Chamber of Deputies on 26 April 1988 and is awaiting approval by their Senate. When this occurs it will be possible to exchange instruments of ratification to bring the agreement into effect. (ii) Exchanges of information on the Greek and Australian social security systems have taken place and it has been agreed that a detailed information paper is to be prepared for consideration by the interested communities in both Australia and Greece. A number of technical issues need more detailed examination before the paper can be completed. Community consultations will take place when the paper has been finalised. Further discussions with Greece will be considered after these community consultations have taken place. (6) (i) The only obstacle to bringing the Italian agreement into effect has been the delay in passage of Italian legislation. (ii) The Government has stated that no negotiations towards an agreement will proceed unless they have the support of the communities they are designed to help. As yet, there is not general support for an agreement within the Greek community in Australia. The information paper referred to in (5) should help to clarify community attitudes. Senator Walsh —On 17 March 1988 (Hansard, page 938) Senator Chapman asked me, as the Minister for Finance, the following question without notice: Is the Minister for Finance aware that the South Australian Government has introduced legislation removing all liability from the Electricity Trust of South Australia (ETSA) for damage it causes to property or persons, including damage caused beyond the South Australian border? Is the Minister aware that because of this legislation, persons will be without claim against anybody for restitution and must now take out all insurance on their own behalf, which, even if obtainable, would be cost prohibitive? Is he further aware that should there be another disaster, such as the Ash Wednesday fires, the Natural Disasters Organisation and the Department of Finance would now not be refunded from ETSA's insurers as was the case previously? Is he also aware that there would have been $400m worth of bankruptcies in South Australia if ETSA had not been liable for Ash Wednesday and that consequent upon this legislation, such an amount may in future be sought from the Federal Government as disaster relief? In view of the national implications of this legislation, will the Minister bring his influence to bear on his Australian Labor Party colleague, South Australian Premier Bannon, to withdraw this outrageous legislation or, alternatively, will the Minister give his assurance, that the Federal Government will reimburse legitimate claimants for all damage caused in the future by ETSA, including in the event of major disasters? Will he also give his assurance, in light of the dangerous precedent established by this legislation, that the Government will remain liable for all uninsured Federal government instrumentalities now and in the future? The answer to the honourable senator's question is as follows: The Bill to amend the Electricity Trust of South Australia Act 1946 contains no provision limiting the liability of the Electricity Trust of South Australia for damage caused by bushfires started by the Trust's infrastructure or activities. The Bill was assented to on 28 April 1988. Senator Cook —On 18 May 1988 (Hansard, page 2402) Senator Harradine asked me, as the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, the following question without notice: My question, which is directed to the Minister representing the Minister for Community Services and Health, follows his statement to the Senate today that the priority for the Government's national health policy is disease prevention. Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the statements by Dr Ditta Bartels, a Sydney molecular biologist, to the Australia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference, that quality controlled babies produced through genetic engineering may soon become the norm and that a new technique would allow genetically defective embryos or those of the wrong sex to be discarded before they were implanted in the uterus? What taxpayers' funds are going towards the diagnostic techniques and proposals for the establishment of genetic registers of persons and families with histories of genetic disorders which would be essential in the establishment of such a filtering system for humans? If taxpayers' money is going towards this, in the case of genetic diseases does the Government's policy of disease prevention really mean prevention of individuals with genetic diseases from being born? The Minister for Community Services and Health has provided the following answer to the honourable senator's question: I am aware of the statements by Dr Ditta Bartels at the recent Australia and New Zealand Association for the Advancement of Science conference regarding genetic engineering of human embryos. I am advised that no taxpayers' funds are being provided by the NHMRC for diagnostic techniques or genetic registers which would be used as a `filtering system for humans' with a view to discarding embryos before they are implanted in the uterus. However, prenatal diagnosis of a number of serious genetic defects has been available for the last 15 years. It has been used only in couples at special risk who request testing. Down's Syndrome in older women and spina bifida in women who have had a previous affected baby are the most frequent reason for testing. There are also a number of other serious genetic diseases that are now detectable. Prenatal diagnosis of these has allowed couples who previously felt unable to have further children to go ahead and produce healthy children. All couples using these tests are counselled about the options open to them. It is important that couples in our society who face these decisions should have available this form of modern medical assistance. With respect to genetic registers, Senator Harradine would be aware of a Working Party set up by the NHMRC's Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) to prepare a background paper on the ethical implications of registers of patients and families with inherited disorders. The reason the NHMRC undertook this task was because researchers in the field have become aware of the need for ethical guidance relating to the setting up, maintenance and use of information in such registers. The report of the Working Party is expected to be submitted to the Medical Research Ethics Committee in the near future. The Government's policy on disease prevention is directed primarily to influencing lifestyles which will avoid factors known to contribute to the development of disease. However, it is also known that in the case of a number of genetic diseases, early detection and treatment can avoid prolonged complications and morbidity in later life. Senator Harradine's inference that the policy includes the prevention of individuals with genetic diseases being born is ill-founded.